My friend is in the Air National Guard and he just returned from an airbase being used to hunt terrorists located in Pakistan. ;)

Right, with at least the tacit approval of the Pakastani government (for the US to send warplanes into their airspace). A related question is: do you think they'd grant it for the US to use "mininukes" if the US suspected they had found him but that the area was too hardened to penetrate with their conventional weapons?

A lot of people talk about the MOAB being a fuel-air bomb. I've read a whole bunch of articles that say it's regular a regular GP high-explosive bomb -- rdx, tnt, tritonal, fertilizer, or whatever it is they use these days.

I've never seen one, never worked with one, so I personally don't know. My point is that a FAE isn't remotely effective as a "bunker buster". The blast isn't that directive unless you get it into an enclosed space. It doesn't even really clear out trees very well. It's designed to spread out a shock wave over a large, non-uniform area -- with the intention of causing trauma (burst lungs, eyes, eardrums, internal bleeding, secondary fires and explosions) to animals.

FAE's don't work in a greater size than about 2000 lbs. WHomever says this monster is an FAE is wrong. THe reason is - they can't ignite - no oxygen from the explosion after it reaches a certain size.

-S

You know what they say! Sometimes it takes a fire to fight a fire! :P

-S

You sound like you are taking the European approach to appeasement over conflict. Go read a couple history books and find out where that gets you.

You are on the tip of things that are much more nasty than nukes. Nukes in general are not a bad thing and seem to have garnered a reputation of the destroyer of everything. They are nothing more than just a bigger bomb. And yes, it may take a nuke to penetrate deep enough to destroy what it is these people are trying to create.

Nukes have come a long way. They are no longer the dirty nasty first gen stuff you saw during the cold war. A tactical nuke could be made with very little rad output and still accomplish the mission described above.

-S

I´ve read somewhere that the current bunker-buster nuclear bomb itself doesn´t penetrate the ground very deeply, only about 20ft IIRC. It then directs the blast downwards to create a shockwave. Even a very small 1kt bomb would create a radioactive dust cloud of enormous dimensions.

Wow. Where to begin. Let's see, I've read many history books over the years, it being my favourite form of nonfiction (focusing mainly on my ares of greatest interest: WWII, midieval Europe, and ancient Rome). Among this month's reading on the WWII side was "The Theory and Practice of Hell" (which focuses on the Nazi concentration camps) and "Memoirs: 10 Years and 20 Days" (Doenitz account of the Uboat campaign, mainly from the German perspective but with additional light shed on it by material written during his imprisonment), and "Silent Hunters" (6 mini biographies of 6 U-boat Commanders). So now that we have that out of the way:

Maybe I've been asleep so far this decade but if there's any great international conflict brewing that parallels WWII, I've missed it. The closest we've come in my lifetime was the cold war, but last I checked that's over now. Therefore what you're basing this "appeasement " thing on I have no idea, since there is no belligerent modern day Nazi Germany, or anything remotely equivalent, to appease.

Nukes have come exactly nowhere since they day they were developed, as the basic physics (fission) and raw material (uranium to plutonium) remains unchanged and therefore all of the hazards, potential destruction, nuclear winter, fallout - all those issues have not gone away. You can build a bigger one or smaller one and set it to impact however you want, and label it what you want, but in the end they are every bit as dirty and nasty as the only two ever dropped.

The scenario you describe is just too easy a way out. Life isn't that simple, let alone international relations between countries and the fallout (radioactive or political) of using a weapon like this that's viewed by the rational world as abhorent. During WWII nobody foresaw the long term effects (cancers, poisoning of the water table, etc) that the only two bombs dropped would have let alone that the USSR would soon aquire the technology as well and that a long cold war and arms race would follow.

That's the problem with these things: there are too many variables to work out all the "ifs" and you can't turn back the clock if things don't turn out the way the "experts" predicted. And I have more faith in them than I do in the politicians who choose whether, when, where and how many to drop.

It was explained like that in a 45 min docu on TV last summer as well.

I´ve found the link where I´ve read those things:
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

Some quotes...

"No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout."

"The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area."

"In order to be fully contained, nuclear explosions at the Nevada Test Site must be buried at a depth of 650 feet for a 5 kiloton explosive — 1300 feet for a 100-kiloton explosive.2 Even then, there are many documented cases where carefully sealed shafts ruptured and released radioactivity to the local environment."

"Even a 0.1 KT burst must be buried at a depth of approximately 230 feet to be fully contained."

Doesn’t it (MOAB) disperse a flammable liquid before a small explosive detonates which causes the gas cloud to combust? :-?

No, it is just a big container filled with conventional explosives. As already mentioned, a FAE has size limitations, because making very large clouds that will support combustion is very difficult (and even the current small weapons can only do this when using fuel with extremely wide explosive concentration limits such as ethylene oxide).

Ahem... since I worked on "special weapons" for a number of years, I can speak with authority on the subject. :know:

I wouldn't take too much stock on the article written by self proclaimed nuclear experts in the media.
First, every modern strategic nuclear bomb we had in the inventory was a "bunker buster". On the other hand, Special Forces, SEAL's, and Army and USMC atomic demolition squads also trained with a "mini" bunker buster called the SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition)- the so-called backpack nuke.
As for "bunker busting" nukes, we deployed several air dropped bombs in the '50's specifically for the purpose (Mark 8 and Mark 11). Problem is they were gun type and weren't exactly safe from an operational standpoint (they were "armed" with active material just before flight).
There are plans to test a larger bomb than MOAB, it's called MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator). My relatives said the whole freaking neighborhood shook when MOAB went off more than 20 miles away. According to the author of "Jawbreaker", Gary Bernsten, a BLU-82 was dropped on the suspected hideout of bin Laden in Afghanistan (which resulted in the "martydom" of several hundred Al Qaida).
Met several individuals who were involved in the atmospheric test program; several were present at the 18 megaton Castle Bravo shot.

Conventional stuff-

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm

Nuclear Weapon Archive-

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/

Yours, Mike

Well i reckon the world should be shaking in there seats cause us kiwis have just released our new missile: :arrgh!:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...manmissile.jpg


Designed by this fella: :arrgh!: :o

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...azion/sick.jpg


:arrgh!: :o :rotfl:

Wait a minute, I worked with those guys... :-? :-j :dead:

Yours, Mike