Nuclear Earth Penetrator to be used against N. Korea

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by peter2002, Mar 8, 2003.

  1. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #1
    The Pentagon is preparing to take the first public step toward obtaining a controversial, high-yield, earth-penetrating nuclear weapon that could be aimed at North Korea's underground nuclear- and missile-production facilities, according to senior Bush administration officials.

    Within one week, an Air Force report is to be delivered to the House and Senate Armed Services committees stating the military requirements for the "robust nuclear earth penetrator," a device designed to dig into the ground before it explodes and crushes any facility buried beneath it.

    The bomb, already five times more powerful than the device detonated at Hiroshima, would have an even greater impact because a nuclear weapon's force is multiplied when its shock wave penetrates the earth's crust.


    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134648773_nuke08.html
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    In a related story, N. Korea says they will torch New York City, Washington D.C. and Chicago.

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826533281.html

    Listen to N. Korean nuke threats here: http://www.abc.net.au/am/2003/03/08/20030308am07.asx
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
  3. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #3
    Funny how the story says that a weapon could be used against North Korea, but for peter"chicken little"2002, there are immediate plans for a "Nuclear Earth Penetrator to be used against N. Korea."
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #4
    could be...

    That is just slang for "will be" and "very soon". Didn't your English teacher teach you to read between the lines?

    Pete
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    #5
    peter2002,
    Didn't your psychology teacher teach you not to be paranoid? ;)
     
  6. macrumors 65816

    kettle

    Joined:
    May 12, 2002
    Location:
    England, Great Britain (Airstrip One)
    #6
    As if "he" has anything to do with it. The world really isn't as straight forward as one "crazy" man.
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    kettle

    Joined:
    May 12, 2002
    Location:
    England, Great Britain (Airstrip One)
    #7
    No, not me, but they did teach me that - just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean "They're" not after me.:confused:
     
  8. Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #8
    Bunker Busters aren't anything new, really. But it is a sad state that the AirForce is going before Congress with this technology.

    All it will do is further escalate the issue - think what the N. Korean's or even Sadam must be thinking.

    And I'd have to say that a conventional bunker buster could easily be retrofitted for nukes. Which means these could be used soon.

    D
     
  9. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2001
    #9
    Ugh this isn't good- There was an article in a popular science magazine awhile back. Well the thing is that a nuclear bunker buster would have to be 1/10 of the power of the Hiroshima bomb because the bomb can't go deep enough- simply its structual integrity would degrade too fast. This 1/10 nuclear bomb would also have to have carbon nanotubes just to get to the depth that they needed. Now they want to do a 5X the power? Great just wait for nuclear fallout now...............
     
  10. macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #10
    Look at you pulling out the nirvana.
     
  11. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
  12. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #12
    Tactical nuclear weapons. Isn't that like being "just a little pregnant?"
     
  13. Nuc
    macrumors 6502a

    Nuc

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    TN
    #13
    about nukes

    I seriously doubt that any time soon will we be dropping nuclear bombs. This is used only as a last resort weapon. Besides if we where to drop bombs on N Korea wouldn't that be stupid. Think about it N Korea is extremely close to S Korea and Japan and other countries. They are able to strike them with all of their long range missiles.

    They do make bombs that are able to penetrate into the ground that would yield a high enough explosion without using nuclear. And I am sure the government will or has already made a nuclear bomb that penetrates into the ground however it will only be used as an option if all else fails. Everybody gets so worked up over nuclear weapons, I mean yes they are dangerous but we won't drop these unless we have to, like we did on Japan during WWII.

    N Korea will be dealt with by either diplomacy or by invasion, not dropping nukes everywhere. That would be ignorant.

    This is my opinion
     
  14. macrumors 68000

    beatle888

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    #14
    Re: about nukes



    wow, i cant believe how people embrace the mass slaughter of innocent lives. reality is a harsh beast.
     
  15. macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #15
    Re: about nukes

    We had the choice to invade Japan, we chose to drop atomic bombs on them instead. That was an ignorant decision.
     
  16. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #16
    Re: Re: about nukes

    Why was this an ignorant decision? Was it because it saved over 300,000 American lives? Really, come explain to me why this was such a bad decision.


    Hey beatle, I know you love innocent civilians, but these weapons are designed to penetrate underground, into facilities, where the people working are trying to build weapons that can kill you. NOT INNOCENT CIVILIANS THE LAST TIME I CHECKED!
     
  17. Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #17
    Re: Re: about nukes

    Not so - not only would there have been heavy casualities on the US side, but the number of Japanese that died would have pushed the total death toll over a 1,000,000 - that's a hell of a lot less than the number of people killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. True, it was unfortunate that they were used, and it was more than just the lives at stake in Japan - Russia had a huge army massed in Germany and Eastern Europe at the time. Dropping the bombs basically told Russia not to press forward and think of taking over the rest of Europe. Continued war in Europe would have cost even more lives. And Russia was serious - remember the Berlin Airlift?

    D
     
  18. macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #18
    Re: Re: Re: about nukes

    Great post Duke! Finally someone sees how the bomb actually protected lives. And was the most humaine thing to do.
     
  19. Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #19
    Re: Re: Re: Re: about nukes

    It would be a lesser evil, in my opinion. But given the alternatives at the time, it really had to be done. Today's political landscape is very different, especially with the fact that Dictators are trying to arm themselves with nukes. There are very few solutions to this problem, given everyone is basically out for themselves. What needs to be realized above all else is that everyone is on this planet together and that petty little powerplays are only a sure way to cause problems and get people killed. Work with the systems not against them.

    But even though its easy to define the problems, working a solution is not going to be possible any time soon. The human race as a whole, needs to grow up, and this will take centuries or millenia, if we allow ourselves to live that long.

    D
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #20
    Its been a while but to my memory...

    On August 3rd the US tested its first successful nuclear weapon, Truman used this weapon on August 6th, with little understanding of how it would affect the people he used it on. All he saw was a weapon that could end the war quickly and limit American losses, he nor anyone, had ANY idea of the devastation it would cause for generations to come. That was ignorant... or am I wrong?

    Did it save lives? Yes.
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    lmalave

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Location:
    Chinatown NYC
    #21
    Re: Re: Re: Re: about nukes

    Yeah, it's hard for people today to understand what we were up against. Keep in mind people that even after we nuked Hiroshima the Japanese did not surrender!!! And then after we nuked Nagasaski they still did not surrender!!! Finally, 3 days after Nagasaki they surrendered on condition that the Emperor would still have a ceremonial role in government.

    This is a country that had a military leadership that was perfectly willing to commit national suicide rather than surrender. Only the shock of something like a nuclear bomb attack would rattle them out of that type of thinking. I think a LOT more than a million lives were saved.
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    lmalave

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Location:
    Chinatown NYC
    #22
    Nuclear scientists were certainly aware that radiation poisoning could cause death beyond just the effects of the initial blast. They were not specifically aware of effects like increased cancer rates, but they knew from experience about radiation burns, etc. caused by mere exposure to radiation, so they certainly knew that it would have some sort of environmental impact.

    But anyway, they knew this was a devastating weapon. It already had a n estimated "kiloton" power before it was used. When you consider that a one ton bomb is already quite a large bomb, and you're taking about kilotons, they knew what kind of power they were dealing with.
     
  23. macrumors 68030

    cr2sh

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Location:
    downtown
    #23
    Heh, funny that youre posting from Manhattan.

    I don't believe that Truman knew what he was dealing with, I can't believe that. If he knew what it would do to those people, the long term devastating effects, and still he used it... I can't imagine anyone being that inhumane.
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    lmalave

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2002
    Location:
    Chinatown NYC
    #24
    So let me get this straight - you'd rather have millions upon millions of people killed or maimed by conventional means rather than a few hundred thousand killed by the bombs and their later effects?

    Are you aware of what a mortar shell can do to a human body? What makes one type of death more preferable to another? I think Truman was trying to minimize the total amount of carnage required to bring about Japan's unconditional surrender - which was necessary so that it wouldn't rise up again to rape and pillage its neighbors. See my post above - even two nukes was barely enough. Japan's leadership was perfectly willing to leave Japan a pile of twisted metal and mangled and charred bodies - all to defend their "honor". We should just count ourselved lucky that they surrendered at all.
     
  25. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    #25
    how deep would an earth-penetrating missle go? i have a feeling that no matter HOW deep, it would **** up not only the subterranean stuff, but things on the surface as well. you all know how big an area the blast of a nuclear bomb affects...i doubt these missles willl be able to travel several miles underground and not cause everything on the surface to fly into the air
     

Share This Page