|Quoting rolfen (Reply 15):|
Yes, not your everyday bomb. But I was thinking maybe a succession of smaller (and cheaper) penetrating bombs striking at the exact same spot will achieve the same effect at a lower price.
While superficially =P logical, bomb is not equal to bomb. As has been written above, this monster first burrows deep before exploding its primary load. Very unqiue design ( which is where the money mainly went towards ), and I think the mass is definitely required for the mission. You can't dent a knight's armor by shooting a thousand peas at it either!
|Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 26):|
Actually Wallis had a 30.000 lbs supersonic penetrating bomb designed, but there was no aircraft available during WW2 to carry it.
Interesting, especially your following excursion into destruction by indirection.
|Quoting wn700driver (Reply 29):|
A more relevant analogy would be how the previous admin and its intel/defense industry tried to make the case that invading Iraq was a matter of dire necessity. How'd that work out again? I recall neither victory nor even the avoidence of severe embarrassment being no part of that equation.
The truth is that thinking like that would have worked well up until about Korea. But nowadays the world economy (something most of the defense industry either doesn't know much about or simply pretends doesn't exist) is so intertwined and interdependent among nations that a WWII type event is more or less impossible. For that to happen, you'd have countries borrowing money from each other to fight each other.
In fact, Israel vs a small selection of its more aggressive neighbors is about the last major conflict we're likely to see. And even then, I would imagine that Israel would probably ask us to mind our own business and stay out anyway on one side, and us being afraid to join in over oil supply issues on the other.
While "cool" on technical level, this project represents the huge amount of reckless and wasteful spending (defined as being an awful lot of money going out the door with no possibility of meaningful return...), that this country can do without. 30mil for just one of these when we still have hundreds of perfectly serviceable nukes? There's no financial sense behind this.
Yep, Iraq was the end of any kind of prudence ( that proven thing behind our entire constitutional setup ). Also quite shameful how there was no planning for the post-victory period, as opposed to WW II
for instance, where an insane ( or rather, sane ) amount of planning went into the post-military phase.
It's equally dangerous to mistake interconnectedness with constraint. Before the First World War, people were saying the same thing. It very rarely pays to merely hope for a good tomorrow. Better to intellectually tackle our greatest fears head on ( and resort to action very sparingly, effectively, tenaciously ).
However, the nuclear threshold is totally different from this bomb, and should by every effort be made to remain that way. Which is precisely why I see this as a wise man's weapon - the opposite of reckless. It's also clearly aimed at extremely high value targets we greatly profit from holding at risk.
This mole on a mission leverages the unique ( and likewise scarce ) capabilities of the B-2, another one of our asymmetric assets, and will alter quite some calculations. It comes with a message that is as effective a diplomatical laser pointer as a specialized, non-nuclear weapon of boom can be.