[Kosh]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9820682/

¡°The proposed weapon, more than 70 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, would have caused unparalleled collateral damage.¡±

Personally I am glad this thing was dropped. I think that certain US policymakers have a dangerous obcession with "the nuke".

[Unknown Target]

That's a good thing But admins, you should change this thread title to "Nuke "bunker buster" plan dropped," cause I came into this thread expecting them to actually be testing it or something!

[Bobboau]

you scared the SHIT out of me!

[FireCrack]

Good, but also bad in that they spent so much money on this already...

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Bobboau
you scared the SHIT out of me!

Lol, sorry about that. Admis, please do change the title.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]For the sake of everyone's peace of mind...
[/color]

[Galemp]

ha!

And yeah, it's always fun hearing politicians hammer on about nuclear proliferation in rogue nations when the US has about 40x as many nukes as anyone else, they've used them in the past, they've stated they have intentions to use them in the future, they're researching new ones, and oh yeah, they can attack any other sovereign nation without cause, without restriction, and without penalty.

Wow, that was a totally off-the-cuff, uncharactaristic rant from me. Can't see how you could argue with it, though... meh.

[pyro-manic]

Good stuff.

[deep_eyes]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
That's a good thing But admins, you should change this thread title to "Nuke "bunker buster" plan dropped," cause I came into this thread expecting them to actually be testing it or something!

shut up you lol!

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]For the sake of everyone's peace of mind...
[/color]

You ruined the fun!!

[Janos]

Thank god. No matter how clean or safe or efficient they would be, the message sent to the rest of the world - including Iran, NK, Brazil and, uhh, everyone - would be pretty much "hey lol NPT second pillar sucks lol" and would antagonize even more people. It would be such sweet propaganda material, and I don't want even to think about the implications of actually using one.

[Nuclear1]

This is good news. Very good news.

[WeatherOp]

Hmmm, *scratches head.

We have had the non-nuclear "Bunker Buster" since the Gulf War. It's very effective, so why does that article say, they are working on one.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm

Sounds like old news brought back up to me.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by WeatherOp
Hmmm, *scratches head.

We have had the non-nuclear "Bunker Buster" since the Gulf War. It's very effective, so why does that article say, they are working on one.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm

Sounds like old news brought back up to me.

In case the enemy builds bigger bunkers!

Maybe it comes from those bizarre stories (completely unfounded AFAIK) of huge SMERSH style Al-Queda bases in Afghanistan.......

[Nuclear1]

Originally posted by WeatherOp
We have had the non-nuclear "Bunker Buster" since the Gulf War. It's very effective, so why does that article say, they are working on one.

Highlighted for clarity. We've had a non-nuclear Bunker Buster, but this plan that was dropped was one for a nuclear version of the famed Bunker Buster of the Gulf War.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Maybe it comes from those bizarre stories (completely unfounded AFAIK) of huge SMERSH style Al-Queda bases in Afghanistan.......

I did love those. According to them Osama had stuff that would make Dr No weep.

Had the war in Afghanistan lasted I'm sure the next set would have intercontinental ballistic missile launchers and a launch pad for Osama's own personal space shuttle

[aldo_14]

I guess it would be remiss to point out the other nuclear plans of the US; http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf

See particularly the latter one, page 47, parts 1d),e),f), g) and h), all of which could have given commanders permission to request nuclear weapons use during the Iraq war; apparently this is on the verge of becoming official policy.

I have to be amused at the naming of a type of ICBM as 'Peacekeeper', though.......surely Big Pointy ****er of Firey Doom would be equally effective as a name?

[Deepblue]

Surely a nuclear weapon would be an effective way of stopping a biological weapon if said weapon existed?

[Grey Wolf]

Yes. If you caught it early enough, though it would sort of defeat the purpose.

[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by WeatherOp
Hmmm, *scratches head.

We have had the non-nuclear "Bunker Buster" since the Gulf War. It's very effective, so why does that article say, they are working on one.

The GBU-28 was designed for the F-111. (Specifically, the F-111's centerline external stores rack.) The Air Force sent all the F-111s to the Arizona boneyard shortly after the First Gulf War. The GBU-28 might be usable with a B-52, nobody's tried that yet AFAIK, but as these are generally assumed to be defended targets, a B-52 is not the best choice. A B-1B can probably carry it on one of the wing external stores racks, but that destroys the stealth characteristics and might pose nasty trim problems (undesireable when flying low at or above Mach 1). The B-2 can't fit it inside the bomb bay. It's something like 28 feet long.