Bunker Buster

The logistics/costs would be astronomical. Not worth it.

Orbital mechanics makes it a bit more difficult to be able to put a bomb on target at just the right time. You either need to wait for the bomb to be at the right point in its orbit, with the right inclination at the right time, or you expend a lot of fuel steering the bomb to the target. And besides, the kinetic energy you gain will be less than the energy it cost you to put the bomb in orbit.

There are always trade-offs.

I was under the impression that treaties have banned orbiting bombs, but according to Wikipedia, only orbiting nuclear bombs are banned by treaty. So a conventional bunker buster could be orbited, with the caveats I mentioned above.

By the way, in his novel 'The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress' Heinlein had his lunar colony defending itself from a dictatorial Earth government by 'throwing rocks' (huge boulders) at the Earth from the Moon. Each boulder impacted with the force of an atomic bomb.

Great novel. A SciFi classic.

They also have a rocket motor in the back to increase the velocity at impact as well. it isn't JUST mass.... f=MA

Actually I was incorrect, the current iteration does not have a rocket motor in the arse, it relies entirely on it's terminal velocity for penetration. planned follow up versions to make them shorter (and able to fit in other aircraft) are planned that will have a rocket booster in the butt. but AH is correct that there is a "sweet spot" in Terminal Velocity in which the penetrator will work best based on it's mass, it's shape (surprisingly blunt, it relies on the bow shock wave in the rock/soil for penetration)and its material of construction.

Allow me to refine my idea a bit.Orbit was a bad reference.

Calculate the energy expended from a 30,000 lb object falling from 50,000 feet,free fall.These B Busters have steering fins and GPS to guide them exactly where they are wanted.

Now,consider the added force if a rocket engine is deployed after dropping clear of the plane.This is better, but still there will be a limited burn time before impact.

Now consider if the rocket engine is instead used to give extra altitude to the GBU.You could increase the burn time to a longer period,and thereby increase the impact energy.

I realize you will not get as much energy out as you put in, but due to longer burn time, you can put more speed(energy) into the GBU than if launched or dropped down in free fall.

As mentioned earlier, there is already a rocket engine driving this massive bomb. The rocket drives the bomb down so that impact is well above terminal velocity. Using the rocket to lift the bomb only higher will make it less accurate and limit the velocity to terminal velocity. Now presumably your scenario could extend the range of the bomb after deployment but the impact velocity will be reduced.

I still haven't clearly communicated my idea.The rocket will be fired once to achieve altitude, then again on the way down, giving a longer burn time,hence acceleration, hence energy, upon impact.Terminal velocity will not be the limit to speed with thrust applied during the decent.

As for a rocket already being used, it is not mentioned in what I have read about the MOU GB, but it may be simply assumed.

Link to the latest:

www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mop.htm

The cost would be astronomical, pun intended.

You would need a Delta IV Heavy to lift a GBU-57A/B.

Or, 7 ICBM Titan II rockets strapped together (which is not even possible).

Bottom line, you will not be able to boost a GBU-57A/B at anything near economical.

For starters, a Delta IV Heavy costs about $250 million to launch and would require a good deal of preparation to launch.

Compare that to the B-2 bomber (which is the aircraft that carries the MOAB) with a per hour flight cost of $135,000. Even a 20-hour flight would only cost $2.7 million or almost two orders of magnitude less than the cost of a Delta IV launch.

It seems that the concept of energy required to overcome gravity to achieve orbit must be = or greater than return energy generated by gravitational forces during reentry is the primary theory operating here.

Is there a minimum altitude at which the buster will work, and is that related to the mass of the projectile in some concrete (no pun intended) way?

The rocket motor is more effective (efficient) driving the projectile toward the target than gaining altitude.

Is this correct, all you space cadets?

If everyone is hellbent on driving this sucker to achieve a higher KE, then why not just attach some retro rockets on the back and be done with it.......

I think this is a case of not seeing the forest through the trees.

Everything I have read on the subject leads me to believe there is a critical velocity for this sucker.

That velocity depends on:

• materials that it must penetrate,
• depth that it must penetrate, and
• desired placement on target.

If you do not get the velocity right it either will not penetrate to the desired depth (too short or too deep) or if the velocity is too great, vaporize during penetration.

The nose cone is made of tungsten (probably the bulk of the mass), but is not impervious to heat and friction.

Lastly, this is not a kinetic kill machine as it contains it's own ordinance. A kinetic missile would probably not be able to penetrate to the desired depths due to vaporization from friction with the ground.

Even large meteors or asteroids that leave a deep crater have a huge amount of collateral surface damage compared to a bunker buster, which is pin-point surgical by comparison.

Re: "The nose cone is made of tungsten..."

I see NUMEROUS references to *W* (AH, mrehmus, Rorschach, etc), yet nobody seems to have made reference to the desperate need to eliminate this element from our battlefields!

We wouldn't want any of our enemies who survived-the-blast to die later from cancer, would we...?(!)

From http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/04/toxic-tungsten/

"I do believe that tungsten has deleterious health effects, and that further work is needed to understand and quantify the cancer risk," he says.

Previous research has shown that embedded tungsten alloy shrapnel is carcinogenic. This is the first time, however, that the element has been implicated. Witten's paper does not prove that tungsten is carcinogenic. But it certainly points to the need for further research.

The Army is concerned enough about possible risks that it has stopped making the tungsten ammo."

Sorry.....couldn't help but to remember this little snippet...

isn't the point to kill them anyway?

Yuppers, every stinking last one of them in the big underground hole.....it doesn't matter how. The ultimate goal is to immediately stop their production of nuclear bomb grade materials and the final assembly of said weapon so it can be deployed by their military or terrorist group of their choosing.

Go help us if they ever reach nuclear capability......the target will be in Europe, the USA, Israel, or one of their Arab neighbors. Remember, Iranians are "Persians", not Arabs, and the two have been battling for hundreds of centuries, since time began.

If they target an Euro country that's a NATO member or the US, then expect a retaliatory nuclear strike with Thermonuclear weapons by the USA or the UK, or even France (however unlikely due to their wishy washy nature)......Iran will end up one big glass parking lot many times over. Unfortunately, this action may escalate and bring China (an ally of Iran's), N. Korea (also an Ally of Iran's), and Russia (who has sold weapons to Iran and has Military advisers on the ground there) into the breach. Whatever happens will result in one huge mess for all concerned....once the anvil has been struck there's no turning back whatsoever. That's why this situation is so very dangerous.....it's a powder keg ready to go off and blow up in everyone's face!!!

Bend over deeply, wave frantically, and kiss your arse goodbye folks!

...or just drop 2,3,...n in the same location?!?!

"why not just attach some retro rockets on the back"

Aren't retro rockets meant to slow things down?

"Retro" as in "Re-Entry Booster Engines"...

Absolutely.

Invest available KE in putting it into high enough orbit, aim for re-entry, then use the boosters in the last period of entry - but - you need a high-density, flush penetration structure (perhaps 72 degs as used on concrete chisel tips..)

As a young Londoner during WW2, I can tell you that a smart version of the V2 should do the trick, they were supersonic when they hit the ground; but you still have to get it up there and planes are more efficient at that because they use "lift".

They are, sort of. That is what the tests for the hypersonic aircraft are about.

The problem with orbital weapon systems are they are banned by treaty,which we are also a co-signee.

Just use a mini nuke and be done with it.

All the bang (and then some) but none of the weight.

another thing that the bunker busters use to increase their effectiveness is shaping the charge to send all of the energy downward. it is very difficult to 'shape' a nuclear detonation since it must by definition be spherically symmetrical to work. that is why a 30kt conventional warhead is actually more effective than a 1mt nuke would be.

Bunker busters using rocket assist were used by the British during WW2, from Wikipedia:

"...They would free-fall for around 30 seconds until, at 5,000 feet (1,500 m), the rockets were ignited, causing the tail section to be expelled.^[4] The rocket burn lasted for three seconds^[5] and added 300 feet per second (91 m/s) to the bomb's speed, giving a final impact speed of 1,450 feet per second (440 m/s; 990 mph),^[5] approximately Mach 1.29..."

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunker_buster

Define "orbital". At what altitude does an object become orbital? Is a parabolic trajectory up to say, 32 miles be considered orbital? If the GBU was boosted from 40,000 feet to 150,000 or so feet by rocket motor,there would be a tremendous increase in impact velocity and energy delivered.Guidance would not be a problem, as they can guide them in free fall very accurately already.

Hi HTRN,

You have some good ideas, keep them coming. I agree that you don't want orbital, too expensive. If the rocket propellant only lasts a few seconds, then it might be better if it was all downwards. Objects tent to reach maximum velocity from air friction. If the object gets too hot, it will detonate above ground where it is useless. It needs to be extremely streamlined. The sharp point would presumably also help it penetrate. To all of you in the US, expect your phone to be tapped because you used the "B" word!

-S

Yeah, both the Homeland Security and NSA are watching your electronically-produced every move with there new Super Computers in that brand new state-of-the-art Utah facility of theirs! Lets not forget the regional "Fusion Centers" either!!!!!!!

Removed Political Comment - CR4 Admin

You have been forewarned.....drink heavily my friends, drink heavily!

Removed Political Comment - CR4 Admin

We have tried that for 3.5 years now and all our consulates and embassies are being attacked.

We have? Don't you mean we have a sick leer on our face when we send in the drones.

Yeah, things were so peaceful before that...

Maybe they could save the money and try sending flowers instead...
Just sayin'

Del

OK, then use rocket boosted flowers. Tape 'em onto the nose of a very large rocket.

I doubt that, We sent green $ but that never satisfies anybody. They just begin to expect it.

And now we've run out of Green $.

The U.S. Navy has a lot of 'spare' Polaris and other ICBMs. They had a development program to fill the warhead with Tungsten rods and then launch the rocket at a specific site. According to the reports I heard about, a 100 x 100 meter area would be turned into compost and to great depth.

The thought was that a submarine could hit any target in the world in just an hour or so, reaching out and touching someone in a truly meaningful manner.

Problem with the idea is that how do you convince those who need convincing (like, say, the Russians) that it has no active warhead? Answer? You cannot so drop the program.

As I understand that unit is dropped from a C-130 and is ignited above the ground at some predetermined elevation. It was designed for use during Vietnam war to open large areas of the jungle. Since then they have found other uses for the bomb.

This is a new device that takes some of the concept of the old "Daisy Cutter" and adds more penetration capability. It is designed not to clear landing zones, but to clean out bunkers.

Yes, it is true that the new 30,000# GBU is dropped out the back of a USAF C-130 transport...the Hercules has to be modified to do so.

The MOP, however, was NOT developed during the Viet Nam War. What you're referring to is the BLU-82B "Daisy Cutter", which is unguided, and weights approximately 15,000# gross weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82

What we are discussing here in this thread is the USAF GBU-57A/B "Massive Ordnance Penetrator", which is a precision-guided munition. It relies on GPS for tracking and guidance. It is a follow-on 3rd Generation penetrator, removed some 4 decades since the Daisey Cutter was developed. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator

Actually, the Daisey Cutter utilized a "fuse extender", of varying lengths depending on the desired end results, that predetermined the light-off point for ignition of the warhead above the ground...if needed at all.

The concept you refer to was referred to by the name "God Rods" - tungsten bars falling from orbit. The development was dropped in response to protests over the militarization of space.

Desert Storm & Todays Gas Prices... Iraq & todays gas prices... THANKS BUSH FAMILY! ( NOT ) O'Yea and our debts! & Dead + Injured "ours & inocent others."

Hi AH,

I like your answer. I'm glad I got to see it before the infamous editors delete it.

-S

Now if he only told the truth, the rest of us could like it.

I missed it, can you repost it?

You wrote, "could it be done?" Sure. Does it have a use? Not really."

I disagree and here is why.

1. I can think of one very desirable target for a bunker buster right now - Iran. You may feel that Iran getting a nuclear is not a bad thing (however, ask people living in Israel if they see it your way), but many other people staunchly disagree.

If Iran becomes a member of the nuclear club there is no turning back. The rest of the world will have to deal with Iran on Iran's terms and it will greatly expand their sphere of influence in the region. Iran is no friend of the West and they have no desire to be. We can lick their shoes, but they will still hate the West because we are a religious abomination in their eyes.

2. Most of the really bad weapons systems never really get used. The reason is because they are what is called a deterrent. Deterrents keep countries from invading other countries. For instance, the Soviet Union wanted badly to invade Europe, but knew that any incursion would bring about a devastating nuclear response. The MAD doctrine is a deterrent. Neither side wanted the resulting devastation and it has kept the peace for 60+ years.

The MOAB is as much a real bomb as it is a deterrent. As long as Iran believes that we can reach their deepest command centers and nuclear development centers it will have an effect on their ambitions to build a nuclear bomb. It's boil down to cost-benefit.

On the flip side, Iran has the potential to mine and shut down the Strait of Hormuz. That ability is one of their deterrents to prevent the West from stopping their nuclear program. Other deterrents would be Hezbollah; a proxy terrorist group for Iran, Iran's vast anti-aircraft network (courtesy of Russia), and their puppet regimes in Iraq and Syria.

All of these things may seem "goofy" in your opinion, but they are the real cards and chips in real geopolitical life that every nation plays. It has been that way for millenniums and shows absolutely no signs of changing.

So you would remove an entire country from the map because you are worried about something happening. Has it happened yet? Is this the right answer? How many innocents are you planning to take out with this plan? How remarkable that this attitude still exists in this day and age. Did you even READ what I said about the fact that saturation bombing does not lead to victory. And such a bomb really would result in collateral damage. Lots of it, and yes, would resemble saturation bombing in all important features.

So you figure I can't handle the truth hmmmm? (a Jack Nickolson reference) 20 years on the perimeter with a rifle and a beret says otherwise.

The rest of your arguement is religious/political in nature, and is not appropriate for this forum, so I won't comment on it. If we were on a debating team or in a tavern, it might make for a rousing exciting evening, but not here please. You can message me private if you think you can support that position. It doesn't sound bad...but perhaps a little rushed...and oversimplified.

MAD was never a successful deterrent. The policial doctrines which resulted in MAD were seriously flawed, and are no longer considered to be valid. The flaw in MAD? Simple. You assume that both sides are merely posturing, and will, like school bullies take action only if they don't face the same consequences themselves. Statescraft is not a school yard, and the "bullies" who have weapons are perfectly willing to let themselves be killed for a principle. War was ever thus, and so what point is your deterrent if one side is prepared to die so long as they can take you with them? Did 9-11 not teach ANY lessons?

It wasn't MAD which brought the wall down.

Goofy...ha! Not MY opinion...that was General Powell. Take it up with him...I think he knows. WMMD are, and always have been "goofy". You simply never get the results you expect to get. Paschendale gas blew back onto the aggressive side too often to be reliable. The flooding of the Rhur valley because of the dambusters did not slow down production more than a couple of percentage points, and was fully recovered within a month. Saddam's "yellow rain" turned into a political-media nightmare which materially led to his downfall. Bagdad first had to be bombed (the cheap part at only 4 billion dollars) and then rebuilt. Whose idea was that? Oh, somebody with LOTS of money came up with that idea! Yeah. The people would be defeated, and won over right away! The general of the republican guard who signed the surrender documents in his city which was reduced to rubble all around him that there would be one dead American soldier every day the US stayed there. He kept his word. Sound defeated to you? (General Schartzkop's "It doesn't take a hero"...he had some interesting ideas too. He knew indescriminate bombing would cause a lot of problems down the line.) WMMD's don't get you the results you want. Thats proven. You get something much worse, something which will come back to you years later. "Bomber" Harris wept after he toured the cities his bombers had leveled, and has been called a "war crimminal"

Remember, we are on the same side here. My 20 year career in the military has made me VERY cautious about such rhetoric....and I have walked too many perimeters in too many places to think that there are any easy answers. However, a cost benefit analysis (if you can put a price on security) would recommend a re-reading of Clauswit's "on war", Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Sun Tsu's fine book, "The Art of War", all of which have several chapters on the expense of waging war, and how to minimize them. Armies have always needed to be paid and motivated. That has not changed in 3000 years!

Do I think something should be done? Well. the answer is a definite "maybe". But please, don't talk about taking down an entire country...some of our CR4 members are in that country! (Yes you did...you said "I can think of a target right now, Iran.) I imagine there are Iranian engineers on this forum who are reading this and cringing! Do I have the answers? Actually, I do, but again, this is not the forum to be going on and on about modern real-politik, and most assuredly not the place for sabre rattling.

So, can you make such a bomb? Sure. Can it be guided in to do its job? Maybe. Will it work? Maybe. Will it result in un-intended consequences? Um...survey says...yes. Is there a better way (a political, religious, or military) way to do this job other than this goofy big ole plug cutter? Most likely.

For instance, how did they deal with that big gun that Gerald Bull designed? You know, the one which could lob shells into Israel? Or the bigger one which could put a shell into orbit? How much do you suppose the assassination cost?

"by both sides"...

By many sides. The first documented wartime attack on civilians in modern times, was the Zeppelin bombing of London during WW1, May 1915.

I really don't want to get into a political or moral debate as this is not the right venue.

Apparently, you do not want to, either, so that is why you launched into this long diatribe. :)

However, there does seem to be a misunderstanding on the functionality of a bunker buster. They are designed to detonate deep into the earth (100's of feet below the surface) and the collateral damage is almost nil compared to surface detonating weapons. They are two completely different systems.

Lastly, thank you for your 20 years of service to this country.

And here I thought I was engaged in a respectful considerate series of statements which responded to each of your points in turn, with references and experience behind them. Diatribe! Really? Well, okay, here is a short pithy statement.

So, which bunker you gonna go after? The one under the school, the one under the prison with your POW's in it, or the one under the UN observer's hotel? And how are gonna be sure you got it all?

All three, but especially the one under the UN observers, since they are so useless.

God help us.

The examples I cited were there to support my argument concerning what is a deterrent and why those things would be a deterrent, which has nothing to do with my political stand on geopolitics.

From your responses it appears that you want to make this argument about something else. Am I wrong on that observation? No where did I state that 'we' should go after a specific target nor anything about the morality of war.

True enough, you didn't.

We seem to have some fundamental differences of opinion. Oh well, differences of opinion is what makes horse races.

Something else? Thats okay. I have said my piece. Make of it what you will.

So how about those Red Sox....they bums or what?

You wrote, "So how about those Red Sox....they bums or what?"

Now that is too funny! :)

I'm surprised someone didn't mention the much hated NY Yankees...."Dem bums!!" LOL

[now now Mr. Moderator, let's not get our undies in an uproar....before you snipe away, let me first explain that I'm a Yankees fan through and through...and not getting into a political spat]

The only conclusive evidence the U.S. has against Iran at the moment is that Iran has even greater proven oil reserves than Iraq. Venezuela, even more. Once Iran's in the bag, they're next. God Bless America

The simple answer to the straight of Hormuz is to run a pipeline around it and forget about it. It has already been done by UAE. But that's the easy way out, and the war machine won't profit by it.

Pipelines are very vulnerable as seen by the numerous attacks on them in the region.

AH is quite correct in his statement.

Does anyone remember the first Gulf War?. Not only did the retreating Iraqi Army Engineers destroy over 700 oil well heads, they also demo'ed numerous oil pipelines within Kuwait. The Lamestream media conveniently failed to report this economic and environmental disaster........

They did report it, actually, and this was how I learned of it. They even hilighted Red Adair's team, who had their hands full with the opportunity of a lifetime, extinguishing hundreds of Kuwaiti oilwell fires. Iraq considered Kuwait as technically and historically belonging to them (true enough). It was why they invaded in the first place - to take back what was rightfully theirs; that is, until we helped slice off a piece to gain access to its oil - and more riches for a select handful of Corporate Good Ol' Boys. The lamestream medium (so-named because it's rare when it's well-done) said nothing of this of course, preferring instead to function as the mouthpiece of the Bush, Sr., Regime's propaganda machine. Faux News has since assumed that role with flying colours. Red, White and Blue, specifically. Oh yeah, God Bless America - even whilst we make every effort to kick Him out with all speed. He's blessing us alright - by giving us exactly what we're asking for: His absence, leaving us on our own and freeing Him up to go bank the fires of Hell. We look around us, uncomprehending, scratching our arses wondering what is happening to our country, reading the news but not reading the times, willfully gullible with our tiny little birdbrain heads buried firmly in the sand, too afraid to open our eyes for fear that what we'll see just might be the Truth. God Bless America? For what, pray?

Okay thanks europium, I was unaware that the media reported it at all. I was stuck in Kuwait until boarding a C-5B Galaxy home-bound on June 16, 1991. None of us saw any sort of newspaper or news magazine. Basically during our time there since Desert Shield beginning in mid-November '90 we listened to the BBC World News on shortwave. It was the only form of news that we trusted...forget the Stars & Stripes diatribe....

My unit (Combat Engineers) aided several of Red Adair's fire teams on many occasions from early May of '91 until we left for CONUS. We provided logistic support for them. Those guys are amazing and have great big brass ones! I for one wouldn't want to do their jobs. We thought that clearing mines and boobytraps (that the Iraqi Engineers left for us that didn't explode) were bad enough, but what they did was incredibly dangerous.

I used to work with a lot of that crew, and our name for them was "The Fire Gods" mainly for their arrogance, but that is another story...

"Does anyone remember the first Gulf War?"

I remember it extremely well, I was holidaying on a house boat on the Murray river when it started.

As for the vandalism both environmental and just plain spiteful committed by retreating Iraqi troops and the following clean up were reasonably well covered by the media in Australia and have been in numerous documentaries I have seen since.

(...to both 127 & 147 ~)

Pipelines have been "targets" since the very beginning.

From: Adventure in Oil [THE STORY OF BRITISH PETROLEUM]
By: Henry Longhurst (with a Foreward by The Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Churchill)
© Sidgwick and Jackson Ltd. 1959

Chapter 1 ~ "Pioneering in Persia"
"The Bakhtiaris might be semi-nomadic tribesmen but their chiefs knew which side they wanted their bread buttered. Reynolds described one of them as being "as full of intrigue as a nightingale's egg is pregnant with music." They agreed eventually to £2000 a year for safeguarding property and plant - "protection money" we should call it today - £1000 a year for the pipeline, and a 3 per cent share in every company working on their land."

Without payments ... "leaks-abounded!"

Not only if Iran goes nuclear, this nuclear club IMO will fracture.

Try to come to an agreement of when nuclear is necessary. It is that much more difficult. Heck even that nuclear club members talk about using it. It will be moretimes than not 'on the table than off'.

Invading and occupying a prime petro producer for the last 10 years could have something to do with pricing, specifically because they needed and continue to need our help to be free. That seems to be working, don't you think?

While I would not blame high gas prices exclusively on this doctrine, it seems likely that it has had some impact. It is also true that both environmentally and politically, it is a consensus view that the combustion and acquisition of petroleum is problematic. This probably has had some pricing impact. Demand has remained very robust, particularly from China. This is the primary reason. If the Chinese economy were really rocking, gas would be much higher.

I also want to clarify that your assumption that gas would be cheaper if we were drilling more U.S wells that the government (which is Obama to you now, but I'm guessing will be an agency if Romney is elected) is prohibiting. There is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, to support this ludicrous statement. The only predictable impact is higher rates of oil company profits, pollution and resource depletion. but certainly not lower retail prices. I am anxious to hear your support for these impacts. There would be some employment gains.

No Mid east oil imports would probably be the single most progressive action the US could take, and I would support it. Gas prices would rise dramatically, our defense expenditures would dramatically decrease, as our responsibilities for secure shipping lanes and political dictatorships could be reduced. Our energy development would drive our economy to incredible heights. Bio and renewable energy resources would grow exponentially. Think oil and defense wants that? Do Republican leaders want that?

AH, You may be an xenophobe. Your fear of the world informs your politics, it informs your vision of America. It drives your spear tip. Your curiosity about science is so much at odds with your naive view of what we could achieve as a country. I'm always amazed at how low your target sits. It seems a lot of members share your view. Like I always say, vote if they will let you!

I think we probably have enough bunker busters in the arsenal. Enough for my kids, too. Do we have enough gas? Sure, just buy it from our enemies, and hope they keep on loving our money. Unfortunately, crackheads don't have a reputation for good long term planning.

Pulling oil out of the US would be costlier than foreign oil on a barrel-to-barrel basis (for many reasons), but it may also take the geopolitical bite out of the Mid East if we (and the rest of the world) were less beholden to this region. That much I think we are in agreement on.

However, where did I advocate domestic drilling in my post?

Where do you get on that I am a xenophobe or that I would encourage the US to take that stance? Have you actually read my post and more importantly, the post I was responding to?

I think you may be drawing incorrect conclusions.

Ever hear the phrase:He who finishes with the most toys wins?

There is plenty of oil buried in the USA.This is information gleaned from thumper truck testing for the last 40 years.Info was stored because there was not enough computing power at the time to analyse all of it, so they simply "cherry picked " the lowest hanging fruit,the easiest to reach.

Computers have advanced tremendously since then, and the data is now available.

There is no shortage of oil on our continent,but the harvested amount is limited by the oil companies to keep profits high.

DeBeers controls the flow of diamonds in a likewise manner.

When the easy oil is exhausted in the middle east,we will drill into our reserves and control the world oil market.Why should we show all of our cards now?Let the world suck the middle east dry of oil.Oil companies will release enough domestic oil to keep supplies available, but they will not create a glut.

About 2 months before hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana, a refinery was shut down because of "excess refining capacity".

After Katrina, the gas prices went up because of insufficient refining capacity.

See a pattern here?

Conspiracy theory?

Maybe,maybe not.

This is,of course, simply my opinion.

Actually no, most of the oil that we know about but have not developed is in places that the US Government won't let us drill. places like offshore on the east and west coasts, offshore florida, and offshore alaska, and onshore on government owned BLM land. the geologists knew even back then, but the government refused to give anyone permission to drill there.

I do not hink that US oil companies control the volume of oil extracted from US soil or coastlines. I think that is controlled by the state and federal government in the form of permits.

As fas as oil companies driving oil prices up for profit, I do not think they have that much control. I think that market forces and geopolitics are the bigger drivers.

Major oil companies may be very large, but they only generate modest profits compared to most other industries. These oil companies are publicly traded entities and as such publish their profits just like any other publicly traded company.

If oil companies really were the huge greedy profit makers that politicians (and media) make then out to be there would be a sea of investors piling on their stocks. However, they do not. What oil companies have that investors do like is a pretty steady, low risk, return on investment. Your retirement and pension funds probably have a significant investment in these companies, by the way.

As far as shutting refineries down, this happens for a variety of reasons, but I seriously doubt there is any crystal ball on this planet that could have foreseen Katrina's impact 2 weeks in advance, much less than 2 months in advance.

Re: "I do not think that US oil companies control the volume of oil extracted from US soil or coastlines."

Kinda-sort-of-to-a-degree-right. What used to be "MMS" (Minerals Management Service; part of our DOI, Dep't of the Interior), is now two entities:
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE)

Oil companies BID for the right to develop the various (offshore) tracts / "Blocks" that are put up for bid by BOEM (as announced here).
Once they win the rights (by High_Bid), they are NOT finished paying. Wells must have a flow meter installed (whether for oil or gas)...meters which are subject to frequent 'audit'...and *Royalties* get paid to the Dep't of the Interior for products extracted.

IF said meters have been tampered with...(or, for a plethora of OTHER potential offences), Civil Penalties are imposed, costing the producers even FURTHER reductions in profit. (Still, with todays technologies, it remains a profitable business!)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/31/united-states-gas-export_n_1177559.html

You need to read this.

Yeah, almost as bias as the Lamestream media?

well, They're not blaming anyone ........... yet.

In WW II the US built the T12 Earthquake Bomb. That weighed in at almost 44,000 lbs!

You're oh so close to the accurate story about the history of earthquake or bunker buster bombs. During WW II Great Britain developed the earthquake bomb approach under the engineering skill of Barnes Wallis after his success in the radical bouncing dam buster bomb design. His first design was not fabricated but the 6 ton Tallboy and then 10 ton Grand Slam were made and used to great effect. After WW II the US developed the nearly 22 ton T12 bomb.

Thanks for the links. WW II is fascinating history.

Kinetic bombardment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

Project Thor

Further reading on the subject has turned up some interesting things.

The idea of more velocity is a two-edged sword.

While the Ke goes up, The problem is too much heat. The heat is not from atmospheric drag, but friction as it penetrates the ground, rock, and concrete.

Materials such as tungsten and the shape of the penetrator's nose cone (ogive) are the key tools for getting maximum penetration.

If the velocity is too low the penetrator will not reach its desired depth. If it is too fast the penetrator may vaporize before reaching the target.

Ideally, the penetrator should detonate either just below the bunker or to the side to maximize the shock wave's effect. It is the shockwave that does the damage and rock, concrete, and to a lessor extent soil, are the mediums by which the wave travels.

I would expect that the designated target is studied to determine depth, bunker materials, soils, and rock to determine the correct altitude for the drop to get the ideal velocity at the point of ground impact. Interesting science.

Materials such as tungsten and the shape of the penetrator's nose cone (ogive) are the key tools for getting maximum penetration.
I believe the material of choice is spent Uranium. (of course there is no such thing)

"Totally spent" uranium would be lead, wouldn't it?

Very soft and a very low melting point compared to tungsten.

Looked up the hardness and the Brinell hardness of U-238 is 2,400, tungsten is 2,570.

Melting point for DU is 2,865°C versus 3,422° C for tungsten.

Density: DU: 19.10 g/cm^3, Tungsten: 19.25 g/cm^3

From my way of thinking that would certainly make tungsten the preferred choice of material for the head of a bunker buster.

It would seem so. However, DU is preferred for armor piercing. They are probably two different scenarios and what works well for one does not necessarily work well for the other, I guess.

U-238 is more ductile. I think the density numbers you have are incorrect as well, I'm pretty sure U-238 is more dense than Tungsten.

Check, if you can. I was surprised at the numbers, too, but I got two different sites (can't recall what they were) that supported that.

Hmm, you learn something new every day, Tungsten and Gold are both more dense than DU. Whoda thunk? I stand corrected.