Pentagon’s 30,000-pound bunker-buster ‘superbomb’ ready for use

Source

US military chiefs openly admitted the weapon was built to attack the fortified nuclear facilities of “rogue states” such as Iran and North Korea. Although the Pentagon insists that it is not aimed at a specific threat, unnamed officials within the ministry have repeatedly claimed the bomb is being tailor-made to disable Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo, or at least to intimidate Tehran.

I did a search and the last post was in 2009.
Now why would RT want to publish this story now? The timing of this is very interesting. Also, they are 20 of these things. They are only there to "intimidate" Iran? Why would we build something like this just for show? I would assume that they will get put to use, and soon. Will it be after the event that everyone keeps talking about that will happen at the Olympics? After isreal bombs Iran?

Thoughts, ATS?

reply to post by theirtruthlies0806


we do a lot of "posturing" to intimidate. it's a "show of force".

if we build the weapon... i think we are past the posturing step.

It doesn't always have to be that you build a weapon, so it MUST be used.

It's an option. It's like saying to Iran, "Ok, look. We've now got something that CAN take out your nuke program, so stop it, or else.

THEN if diplomacy fails, use them.

Originally posted by nostromo85
It doesn't always have to be that you build a weapon, so it MUST be used.

It's an option. It's like saying to Iran, "Ok, look. We've now got something that CAN take out your nuke program, so stop it, or else.

THEN if diplomacy fails, use them.

i agree, that is an option.

but thats if they decide to use it as such. theres no way of knowing their intentions. just seems like good timing to come up with all the Iran stuff.

very coincidental.

Originally posted by nostromo85
It doesn't always have to be that you build a weapon, so it MUST be used.

It's an option. It's like saying to Iran, "Ok, look. We've now got something that CAN take out your nuke program, so stop it, or else.

THEN if diplomacy fails, use them.

So.... Lets say Iran builds Suitcase Nukes.

Using your logic, it would be OK to use them on US Cities.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
So.... Lets say Iran builds Suitcase Nukes.

Using your logic, it would be OK to use them on US Cities.

How is that using my logic?! That's about as far removed from my logic as you can get! Hahaha.
I stated about how the bomb is a bargaining chip for deplomacy, so unless english is not your first language or you're simply just being a troll, I have no clue how you came to that conclusion

This booger is right on schedule.....announced back in February to be ready by july sometime,it is speciall designed for underground facilities buried in Granite....
Sound like Fordo?
Well the decision to go ahead with this baby was taken when Fordo was found out about......
back first months of 2012....
The old ones are not big enough for the penetration thats required to really do damage to such a deep facility......
For this reason aone i KNOW Isreal will not attack....They simply havent the trucks to haul such large trash to the dump.zone..........F16s wont cut it and neither will F18s which are about the heaviest bombers isreal has.........
How many tons of fuel would it take to haul that thing over there in a B52?
Mucho jet fuel id bet.....
The air war would have to be going great guns to send the Buffs over there...
I am not so sure the B2 stealth bombers have a big enough bombay...and they loose their stealth configuration if its mounted outside the crafts....anybody really know this?
I guess the Ysrealis could always load up a couple C130s to move their ordinance...they have enough escorts.....

"When even cockroashes can't hide"

I was reading this earlier.
Now, let's hope they wont have a need for it

reply to post by theirtruthlies0806


Didnt they drop a bunch of bunker busters on Saddam?
They found him hiding in a small hole in the ground. So much for that.

reply to post by theirtruthlies0806


Is this what they'll use to try and destroy Syria's chemical/bio warfare compounds? Seems plausible as a 30,000 ton bunker buster would most likely incenerate any bio germs from ever getting out??

This is NOT an intimidation weapon. There are 20 or so of them (announced-probably many, many more in actuality) because there are a limited number of underground nuclear sites that would need to be hit with bunker busters. The way the weapons work is that the facilities will be destroyed and then the earth collapsing in on them deep underground would also contain the fall-out. Hence the reason why countries do underground nuclear testing-to contain fallout. Bunker busters destroy the underground facility AND help contain fall out.

As far as hitting bio and chem weapons fascilities-this is actually easier. If they are underground then yes again buker busters would be used. If above ground, then super high temperature incindiary devices will be used that would effectively vaporize chemicals and or germs.

Originally posted by stirling

How many tons of fuel would it take to haul that thing over there in a B52?
Mucho jet fuel id bet.....

Average fuel burn for a B-52 is figured at a bit over 22,200 pounds per hour. That's 3334 gallons. Great Circle distance from Barksdale AFB (closest B-52 base) to Tehran is 7222 miles. If it's a wintertime mission, the prevailing winds might give you an average groundspeed of 650 mph, so we're talking 11 hours - about 250,000 pounds of fuel. And that is each way. With that amount of ordinance, combat radius will be limited, so you also need to throw in fuel for a KC-135 or KC-10 tanker. And let's not forget some escort fighters to throw into the mix. Say some F-15s. If you keep it out of afterburner you can get fuel burn down to 2500 gph. In burner, it's 7000 gph. And some more tankers for the fighters. And I wouldn't want to go without an EC-4 for airborne control.

reply to post by F4guy


You guys need to read the article again. The photo shows the mock up in the belly of a B-2 not a B-52.

Recalculate please.

and then iran comes up with "super concrete" that this beast cannot penetrate.
www.rt.com...

I can tell you first hand that the bomb in question is being built.....I have acutally touched the dang thing with my own hands. It's being built in my City by Boeing. In my position, I was giving the opportunity to tour the plant where these bombs are being built. The thing is the size of a small school bus.

Trust me, it's here, and they are building it...

reply to post by nostromo85


That's easy. Using your logic in reverse, it would go something like this:

"Okay, we've copied your schematics for portable nukes. They've been tested, they work very well. We're ready to send them your way if we have to, so stop trying to scare us into compliance, or else."

See?

Originally posted by nostromo85

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
So.... Lets say Iran builds Suitcase Nukes.

Using your logic, it would be OK to use them on US Cities.

How is that using my logic?! That's about as far removed from my logic as you can get! Hahaha.
I stated about how the bomb is a bargaining chip for deplomacy, so unless english is not your first language or you're simply just being a troll, I have no clue how you came to that conclusion

So what you are saying is; If Iran develops a nuclear war head it has the right to use that as a bargaining tool?
Basically telling the US/Israel to get stuffed or be bombed?

reply to post by lonewolf10


So if Iran doesnt have any nukes, then why in the world would they need super concrete? What are they hiding?

reply to post by nostromo85

THEN if diplomacy fails, use them.

What diplomacy? "Stop all your legally allowed enrichment under the NPT or else".

That does not constitute as diplomacy.