Nuclear weapons, war and cultures

[Vpanoptes]

Some Long Range Strike News from the Air Force Association (three stories)



A Slimmer MOP: The Air Force’s massive ordnance penetrator, or MOP, is a good first step at being able to destroy deeply buried targets beyond the reach of other bunker busters, says Lt. Gen. Phillip Breedlove, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and requirements. However, the MOP—a massive weapon of 15 tons—must be succeeded soon by weapons offering the same effect, but in a much smaller package, he told attendees at Thursday's Air Force Association-sponsored Air Force Breakfast Series presentation in Arlington, Va. A next-generation penetrator munition, to be based on the hard target void-sensing fuze, should be "about a third" of the size of the MOP, so that "it can be carried in an aircraft we can afford to build," said Breedlove. He encouraged industry contractors to get cracking on the future weapon, which will equip the Air Force's next long-range strike aircraft.

Umm, maybe it's just me, but does it seem a little like the cart is before the horse here? We apparently have no idea of the design of the proposed aircraft, and yet they ("industry contractors) are supposed to "get cracking" on a major weapons system for it? ???

 

[sferrin]

Some Long Range Strike News from the Air Force Association (three stories)

The Debate over Long Range Strike: There’s a "lively debate" at the Pentagon in defining the Air Force's next long-range strike platform, Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and requirements, said Thursday. Enemies have studied US tactics and are burying their most valued assets deeply, far from coastlines, and with multiple protections, Breedlove told attendees of an Air Force Association-sponsored Air Force Breakfast Series presentation in Arlington, Va. He said the question driving the debate is: "How much of our nation’s wealth are we willing to put against those targets, which our opponent is making very, very expensive" to hit? Plus, there is the issue of disclosure, since announcing weapons decisions in detail could "telegraph" to opponents what targets the US has effectively ceded to the enemy as too tough, he said. Breedlove said the Air Force "still believes," that "it is a core requirement of our nation to be able to hold targets around the world at risk."

10Mt in the nose of a MOP 'ought to handle just about anything.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

aye, most structures can only handle stationary 8 tons but 10 tons diving through them is overkill

 

[sferrin]

aye, most structures can only handle stationary 8 tons but 10 tons diving through them is overkill

Mt as in megatons.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

was thinking metric tons in line of a serious discussion

 

[bobbymike]

sferrin - assuming we have one in inventory because we sure can't build one today.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

i hope this doesn't start another locked thread B)

 

[sferrin]

was thinking metric tons in line of a serious discussion

Why, because nukes are "old fashioned"? :

 

[sferrin]

i hope this doesn't start another locked thread B)

You're working on a good start aren't you? Looks to me that you're just trying to stir up s--t.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

just avoiding political jousting that's all

 

[sferrin]

just avoiding political jousting that's all

Fair enough. I'd like to keep the politics out as well but sometimes they're so intertwined it's difficult. For example, your "trying to keep it serious" comment about nukes stems from a purely political standpoint. Technically, a 10Mt penetrating nuke could probably take out damn near any target that could be built. Politically, it would take balls of steel to use one which in this day and age is a virtual impossibility. Does anybody here believe that if a dozen or three nuclear-tipped GBU-28s were used against Iran's nuclear efforts today that they wouldn't fold up the tent and abandon their nuclear weapons program immediately? And yet the politicians will continue to pretend sactions will work- right up until Iran has nuclear weapons.

 

[bobbymike]

I agree with sferrin. I construed that his point about a 10Mt bomb was simply an observation that it would be a simple and elegant solution to the hard target deeply buried problem that a conventional bomb no matter how big cannot solve.

From a scientific stand point you can debate whether it would work but whether it would be used is the political decision.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

hmmm... good point as I doubt something as compact as thermobaric design would be used

 

[quellish]

Technically, a 10Mt penetrating nuke could probably take out damn near any target that could be built.

Someone has watched "The Core" a few too many times. Long story short, the penetration matters a lot more than the yield. Above a certain point, for certain targets, a higher yield does more harm than good. Conventional weapons are a much better fit for hardened targets than you might think.

 

[sferrin]

Technically, a 10Mt penetrating nuke could probably take out damn near any target that could be built.

Someone has watched "The Core" a few too many times. Long story short, the penetration matters a lot more than the yield. Above a certain point, for certain targets, a higher yield does more harm than good. Conventional weapons are a much better fit for hardened targets than you might think.

I'd be interested to hear how 10,000lbs of high explosives a hundred feet underground is more deadly than 10 million TONs of explosives a hundred feet underground. Maybe they explained that on "The Core"?

 

[quellish]

I'd be interested to hear how 10,000lbs of high explosives a hundred feet underground is more deadly than 10 million TONs of explosives a hundred feet underground. Maybe they explained that on "The Core"?

Here is a starting point in the public domain. You should be able to figure it out from here.
http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/articles/effects/

 

[sferrin]

I'd be interested to hear how 10,000lbs of high explosives a hundred feet underground is more deadly than 10 million TONs of explosives a hundred feet underground. Maybe they explained that on "The Core"?

Here is a starting point in the public domain. You should be able to figure it out from here.
http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/articles/effects/

Read all kinds of similar material. Never saw anywhere that said X amount of boom under a given set of conditions produced more damage than X10^6 amount under the same conditons. Maybe you could point that out in the source you gave, because what I'm seeing is comparing airbursts to surface bursts or surface bursts to subsurface bursts and launguage referring to optimum yields for a given crater size, none of which refutes my point. Do you honestly believe that 10,000lbs of HE set off under 100 feet of dirt produces more boom than 10 million tons under 100 feet of dirt? One only need view the video of the Cannikin shot for a hint at the difference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMmFy4NdA8s

You gonna tell me 10,000lbs of HE is gonna do that? Really?

 

[quellish]

Read all kinds of similar material. Never saw anywhere that said X amount of boom under a given set of conditions produced more damage than X10^6 amount under the same conditons. Maybe you could point that out in the source you gave, because what I'm seeing is comparing airbursts to surface bursts or surface bursts to subsurface bursts and launguage referring to optimum yields for a given crater size, none of which refutes my point. Do you honestly believe that 10,000lbs of HE set off under 100 feet of dirt produces more boom than 10 million tons under 100 feet of dirt? One only need view the video of the Cannikin shot for a hint at the difference.


You gonna tell me 10,000lbs of HE is gonna do that? Really?

That they are not equivalent is exactly what I am saying. I am also saying that a 10 megaton nuclear penetrator is less effective for hard target defeat than, say, a 1 megaton nuclear penetrator.
If you are planning to strike HDBTs, you have more options with conventional penetrating weapons than you do with nuclear weapons of (nearly) any yield.

Anyway, this would be more on topic:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712/is_43_231/ai_n29294229/

 

[bobbymike]

sferrin - cool video hard to believe we used to test 5Mt bombs when we haven't tested any nuclear device for close to 20 years.

 

[sferrin]

That they are not equivalent is exactly what I am saying.

I never said that they were.

I am also saying that a 10 megaton nuclear penetrator is less effective for hard target defeat than, say, a 1 megaton nuclear penetrator.

So you are saying that if you replaced a 1Mt warhead with a 10 Mt warhead in the same device delivered to the same depth that a 10 Mt warhead might not kill it but a 1Mt warhead would?

If you are planning to strike HDBTs, you have more options with conventional penetrating weapons than you do with nuclear weapons of (nearly) any yield.

Any HE warhead could be replaced with a nuclear one so that is not true, not to mention that there are targets too deep for any conventional munition that is small enough to be carried by an aircraft so you would NEED a nuke. I anything, you have more options with the nuke because not only is it more powerful, it would be considerably lighter.

 

[Orionblamblam]

not to mention that there are targets too deep for any conventional munition that is small enough to be carried by an aircraft ...

Not neccessarily true.

http://defensetech.org/2006/11/23/earthquake-array-hits-deeper-than-nukes/

http://nextbigfuture.com/2006/11/destroying-bunkers-and-entrances-down.html

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/07/journey-to-the/

Of course, replacing the conventional explosive packages with nukes would make it even *more* effective.

Kinetic penetrators are a very limited means of deep attack.

 

[sferrin]

not to mention that there are targets too deep for any conventional munition that is small enough to be carried by an aircraft ...

Not neccessarily true.

http://defensetech.org/2006/11/23/earthquake-array-hits-deeper-than-nukes/

http://nextbigfuture.com/2006/11/destroying-bunkers-and-entrances-down.html

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/07/journey-to-the/

Of course, replacing the conventional explosive packages with nukes would make it even *more* effective.

And that's really the only point I'm trying to make. Any conventional hard target weapon, however good, will be even better with a nuke on it.

 

[Avimimus]

just avoiding political jousting that's all

Fair enough. I'd like to keep the politics out as well but sometimes they're so intertwined it's difficult. For example, your "trying to keep it serious" comment about nukes stems from a purely political standpoint. Technically, a 10Mt penetrating nuke could probably take out damn near any target that could be built. Politically, it would take balls of steel to use one which in this day and age is a virtual impossibility.

There would be plenty of international political "fallout" and internal public opinion would likely swing against it after the fact (even if it was initially in support). However, if there was a clear need for such a strike a politician could still do it, even if reelection would be unlikely and there is a possibility of trials if the strike required breaking the constitution of the country or international law. I agree though: it certainly wouldn't be a case of "politics as usual". Any situation where deployment of nuclear weapons is "politics as usual" would be pretty frightening.

I think the real problem is that the possession and stockpiling of such weapons would tend to justify Iran developing a deterrent. The constant saber rattling towards Iran means that any U.S. weapon can be perceived as possibly directed against the country (especially if discussions of such weapons include discussions about their use against Iran). In this case there is little justification under international law to prevent Iran from developing a credible nuclear deterrent - which is a very, very bad situation to come about.

This is by far the most important effect of the development of such weapons (because it increases the likelihood that there will be targets for them to hit)

Does anybody here believe that if a dozen or three nuclear-tipped GBU-28s were used against Iran's nuclear efforts today that they wouldn't fold up the tent and abandon their nuclear weapons program immediately? And yet the politicians will continue to pretend sactions will work- right up until Iran has nuclear weapons.

Since you asked: I do.

A quick examination of the Iran-Iraq war should dispel any idea that Iranians (both government and citizens) are unwilling to make sacrifices and take tremendous casualties if sufficiently threatened. Such a strike *might* end the program, but it wouldn't immediately end the regime and it would likely cement opinion against the United States. Iran would certainly gain sympathy from other countries and the population would feel very threatened.

It is important to remember that the governments of dictatorships are even less likely to represent their populations than the governments of democracies. However, dictatorships thrive if they can make the population feel that they are threatened by the same forces as the governing regime. The USSR probably wouldn't have survived nearly as long as it did if it wasn't for the Cold War (which kept the population focused on militarisation and external, not internal problems).

Today Iran is a deeply divided country. A short time ago it was willing to recognise Israel (now it clearly isn't, but the policy swing shows clear potential). After 9/11 there were massive demonstrations throughout Iran in sympathy with the United States. Iran is not an Arab/Sunni country and is thus relatively free standing in the middle east. Iran has a high education rate and very large numbers of women being educated. All of this bodes well for the future.

I fully agree that sanctions won't work, but a first strike won't work either (although it could cause delays). However, taking off the pressure might actually lead to a change in government. It might take a decade after the first weapons are built, but it would still likely happen before the weapons are used.

My 2 cents on why a technological solution simply isn't appropriate here. Saintkatanalegacy: I'm truly sorry for a political discussion of Iran creeping into this post, as I loath politics - but it is an unavoidable corollary of discussing the uses of such weapons (if not the weapons themselves).

It is considered by many to be basic scientific ethics to at least raise such considerations. If anyone feels a need to reply - do so, but I won't further comment in this thread so as to try to minimise political discussion.

 

[donnage99]

The fundamental issue of the usage of nukes has always been politics, so it is hard to avoid politics. However, it would be better to split topic into something along the line of "usage of nukes in the forseeable future" than to have to be quite though one has alot to say in order to stay relevant to the topic.

 

[iverson]

Avimimus:

You have presented a succinct, eloquent, and extremely well-reasoned assessment that is much, much better than anything we hear from the professional press, much less government. You should submit your views for wider publication, in a less specialized forum. They might be influential (far-fetched though it may be to hope that mere reason can influence events).

 

[Orionblamblam]

I think the real problem is that the possession and stockpiling of such weapons would tend to justify Iran developing a deterrent.

And what would unilateral nuclear disarmament on the part of the US do to the Iranian nuclear program? Before you answer, ask yourself this:
"Does every culture on the planet consider disarmement wisdom... or do some see it as weakness?"

 

[donnage99]

And what would unilateral nuclear disarmament on the part of the US do to the Iranian nuclear program? Before you answer, ask yourself this:
"Does every culture on the planet consider disarmement wisdom... or do some see it as weakness?"

I think you missed his point. I don't think he was talking about the reaction of Iran's CURRENT regime toward the stockpiling of nukes on US part, but rather the justification against international community and its people.

One of the failure of Vietnam was the "invasion" of Vietnam itself, giving Viet Cong a justification to recruit a tremendous amount of sympathizers and members and for the North to gain success with its propaganda targetting its people. They had loyalty of entire villages that didn't even know what communism meant.

 

[bobbymike]

On a few different sites that discuss US nukes and the world (but really mean North Korea and Iran more or less) I have poised the question that no one seems to want to respond to directly, mainly the US has massively disarmed from 25000 strategic weapons going to 1550, the current resident of the White House, who is supposedly trusted and loved around the world, has pledged time and again that the goal is "Global Zero". We have not built, tested or for all intents and purpose not researched (paper studies, RRW notwithstanding) new weapons. We have let our nuclear infrastructure whither on the vine. Yet other countries, other than giving lip service to the idea, have not modified and it could even be argued many have accelerated their nuclear weapons programs.

What more is the US to do to convince these nations?

 

[Orionblamblam]

What more is the US to do to convince these nations?

http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm

Diplomacy really only works when all sides share similar cultures. But unstoppably insane shows of force are *always* effective.

 

[sferrin]

What more is the US to do to convince these nations?

http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm

Diplomacy really only works when all sides share similar cultures. But unstoppably insane shows of force are *always* effective.

It is an unfortunate reality that there are those who only understand a bat to the head. Countries as well as people. No amount of appeasement, understanding, or wishful thinking will ever change that. Those who aren't prepared to deal with that reality will, in the end, be dealt with by Darwin.

 

[Vpanoptes]

What more is the US to do to convince these nations?

http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm

Diplomacy really only works when all sides share similar cultures. But unstoppably insane shows of force are *always* effective.

It is an unfortunate reality that there are those who only understand a bat to the head. Countries as well as people. No amount of appeasement, understanding, or wishful thinking will ever change that. Those who aren't prepared to deal with that reality will, in the end, be dealt with by Darwin.

Please - Charles Darwin was and continues to be historically misunderstood, his name attached to and villified for thoughts he likely never held ("social Darwinism" among others) and ideas he certainly never expressed nor supported, especially in the context of this thread. Please do not further contribute to this deplorable state of affairs.

-Vpanoptes

 

[Stargazer]

I think the real problem is that the possession and stockpiling of such weapons would tend to justify Iran developing a deterrent.

And what would unilateral nuclear disarmament on the part of the US do to the Iranian nuclear program? Before you answer, ask yourself this:
"Does every culture on the planet consider disarmement wisdom... or do some see it as weakness?"

OBB definitely has a point here. What we modern Westerners consider as signs of more advanced civilization and greater humanity is not always deemed as such. In some cultures, survival of the fittest is the rule, and the weak, the handicapped, the insane are abandoned or exiled. They think it makes for the community's strength, while we think that integrating them shows how much more advanced we are. Same goes with religion. For instance, while we consider it a superior view to respect every man's beliefs and not impose them upon others, extreme Islamists view it as a proof of weakness and of the superiority of their religion, which they have an obligation to propagate across the world, by force if need be. Everytime a progressist city council in Europe allows for a mosque to be built, the fundamentalists see it as a sign that they are advancing and we are declining. We think we make a step forward towards tolerance, while they think we prove the inherent superiority of their beliefs and design. And while a majority of Muslims want to live at peace, these minority groups only live to topple down our civilization and establish a medieval-type society based on fear and deprivation of all basic human liberties.

Disarming everyone and living at peace with one another on a global scale is a beautiful dream. And I for one would be the first to embrace it. But when you realize that folks over the fence do not see it that way and are waiting for every chance to bring you down, you need to adopt a more realistic and balanced view. "Si vis pacem, para bellum", the Romans said. If you want peace, make ready for war. This old adage still holds water.

 

[flateric]

what the hell last two pages has in common with Next Generation Bomber Studies? arghh..

 

[sferrin]

What more is the US to do to convince these nations?

http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm

Diplomacy really only works when all sides share similar cultures. But unstoppably insane shows of force are *always* effective.

It is an unfortunate reality that there are those who only understand a bat to the head. Countries as well as people. No amount of appeasement, understanding, or wishful thinking will ever change that. Those who aren't prepared to deal with that reality will, in the end, be dealt with by Darwin.

Please - Charles Darwin was and continues to be historically misunderstood, his name attached to and villified for thoughts he likely never held ("social Darwinism" among others) and ideas he certainly never expressed nor supported, especially in the context of this thread. Please do not further contribute to this deplorable state of affairs.

-Vpanoptes

Darwin isn't the "survival of the fittest" guy then?

 

[Vpanoptes]

http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm

Diplomacy really only works when all sides share similar cultures. But unstoppably insane shows of force are *always* effective.
[/quote]

It is an unfortunate reality that there are those who only understand a bat to the head. Countries as well as people. No amount of appeasement, understanding, or wishful thinking will ever change that. Those who aren't prepared to deal with that reality will, in the end, be dealt with by Darwin.
[/quote]

Please - Charles Darwin was and continues to be historically misunderstood, his name attached to and villified for thoughts he likely never held ("social Darwinism" among others) and ideas he certainly never expressed nor supported, especially in the context of this thread. Please do not further contribute to this deplorable state of affairs.

-Vpanoptes
[/quote]

Darwin isn't the "survival of the fittest" guy then?
[/quote]

The term "survival of the fittest" was coined by an English economist, Herbert Spencer. Darwin did not use it. Darwin co-developed the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (with Alfred Russell Wallace, another English naturalist), which is greatly misunderstood and often (mis)used in a social/political/cultural context to justify/rationalize all sorts of ideas. "Fitness" has a significantly different and specific meaning when used by scientists and in relation to evolutionary theory.

 

[sferrin]

The term "survival of the fittest" was coined by an English economist, Herbert Spencer. Darwin did not use it. Darwin co-developed the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (with Alfred Russell Wallace, another English naturalist), which is greatly misunderstood and often (mis)used in a social/political/cultural context to justify/rationalize all sorts of ideas. "Fitness" has a significantly different and specific meaning when used by scientists and in relation to evolutionary theory.

"The term "survival of the fittest" was coined by an English economist, Herbert Spencer. Darwin did not use it." I guess they'll be dealt with by Herbert Spencer then. In simpler terms- weakness invites trouble. Plain enough?

 

[Avimimus]

what the hell last two pages has in common with Next Generation Bomber Studies? arghh..

Now that is an excellent quote! Thanks for pulling the pages out.

 

[Avimimus]

Avimimus:

You have presented a succinct, eloquent, and extremely well-reasoned assessment that is much, much better than anything we hear from the professional press, much less government. You should submit your views for wider publication, in a less specialized forum. They might be influential (far-fetched though it may be to hope that mere reason can influence events).

I am very honored by your opinion. I should state that I am well aware that I may be wrong on all counts. However, I will take your advice though when opportunities arrive.

What more is the US to do to convince these nations?

I'd say - give them time.

It is important to remember that North Korea was bombed quite badly within living memory. Iran faced a coup and then the equipping of Saddam to invade. It takes time and present day threats (while perhaps important for diplomacy) makes it harder for people to turn a new page in their history.

Diplomacy really only works when all sides share similar cultures. But unstoppably insane shows of force are *always* effective.

You've made the point well enough that I'll never forget it. Thanks.

But it is possible to reach a detentes. It is possible to gradually show others you do not think as they do and give them a chance to rise above their most dangerous tendencies, values and fears.
In cases of mutual distrust and fear is the driving factor, the first step often has to be an act of faith by one side - not total disarmament of course, but having the courage to act first.

Yes, I agree unstoppable insane force worked for the Romans (and others). But it seems to often end up amounting to massacring other societies, their cultures and their populations (it certainly did for the Romans anyway). It is sometimes necessary (eg. Nazi Germany), but if widely applied it can become a drive to quite literally "create a solitude and call it peace". It also isn't an option for the weak, who must adapt or peacefully influence and transform those who have power over them. So it helps to cultivate many approaches for different situations.

Stargazer2006, sferrin, Orion - in essence, I agree. I just think that it is good to be better than one's enemies and leave the door open for them to be better than we fear they are. Sometimes it won't work of course and history will take a different course.

I for one would never have predicted the relatively peaceful end to Apartheid in South Africa. I want as many chances to be proved wrong in the future as possible.

 

[Avimimus]

One more thought: We actually accomplish a lot by talking (although I am a fan of action as well). I've found that each conversation gives a chance to learn. It doesn't matter where or when the conversation takes place or really whom it is with - it always has that potential. Of course some people are more knowledgeable to talk to and some subjects are more important. Over time conversations add up to something. That something amounts to a mixture of good judgment in oneself and improved understanding between people. So, I always feel privileged to take part.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Renamed topic. I was probably just a bit annoyed at the total deviation for three pages from the previous topic when I named this one I split off from it.