U.S. drops nuclear bunker-buster plans

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Oct 26, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/25/bunker.buster.ap/index.html

    What they should have argued against was putting this weapon in control of the current crop of "free-thinkers" in the administration.
     
  2. Nuclear capabilities are s-o-o-o-o 1980s.

    What you need is one of these.

    At $27,000 a throw, it even makes sense to the Treasury! :D
     
  3. Outstanding VFM! Works out at about £1/lb. Less that strawberries!

    I guess someone in the brain trust has finally figured out that nuclear weapons aren't exactly conducive to a winning a guerilla war and winning hearts and minds after all. It ain't much, but for these folks it's a start.
     
  4. They use modified versions of these to put forest fires out.
     
  5. Those 'Bunker-Buster' Nukes are not so 'tactical' if your blast and fallout yield might create a million or so colateral casualties.


    Darth_Doctrinus
    Remember...Our BLU-82B...it's 'Daisy Cutter' not 'Daisy Chain'...


    :)
     
  6. When I read that AP story, the word that came to mind was "disinformation." They might be going out of their way to create a (false) impression that they don't intend to use nuclear weapons to takeover Iran.

    Regardless of what's been dropped from the budget, they've got a huge "black" budget we'll never see and with which they can buy their hearts' desire.
     
  7. Poofs.

    THIS is a bomb....

    and its BRITISH

    [​IMG]
     
  8. That's the Grand Slam, up at Chattenden isn't it? So are you suggesting that the RAF Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Lancaster gets uprated to operational service, and BAE start knocking up 10 ton iron bombs?

    OUTSTANDING!

    Bagsy I get to be the rear gunner!
     
  9. Aha, the "L33 Mark 2 exploding human 150lb charge" - out of interest, what is the large concrete block next to him for? ;)

    Ghost
     
  10. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    The plans were never serious, after initial research which showed that there is no way at present to get a charge through the earth the distances required. This is the same for Nuclear or Conventional weapons - same problem, except NW are more delicate. If you accelerate it, either by powering it or dropping it from high up, it still faces the problem of a solid object, no matter how hard, hitting concrete or rock - which is also pretty tough. No way on God's Eaarth (or in it) that this could penetrate far enough to contain more than a teensy NW burst.

    If there has been disinformation, it has found a fine target among those daft enough to beleive that this thing is possible. Prime among these have been, of course, most of the anti-nuclear organisations, making fools of themselves again.
     
  11. The Vulcan could carry one of these babies. I'd pay good money to see a V drop one of these on Tora Bora from 60 Grand up - none of this poncing about with JDAMS! Christ, the thing would be at near enough Mach 2 when it hit, dropped from that hieght.

    Even its smaller brother, Tallboy, made a mess of the 3rd Riech's finest concrete structures, pocket battleships etc
     
  12. This is what happened to the Bielefeld Viaduct when a Secial Delivery Package was delivered personally by the RAF...

    [​IMG]

    Would have taken the edge off their day.
     
  13. And this is what even it's little brother can do...

    [​IMG]

    Should this be in the "What I Want for Christmas" thread?
     
  14. Remember these were dropped over optical sights - none of your new fangled radar/laser mularky. OK - they used a very special bombsight, but it was still one man looking through the cross hairs at the target. I think the Samur tunnel (pictured) was actually a night attack, aiming on target flares that were dropped by Leonard Cheshire - class.