MOPping up the Fordo base

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Styx, Feb 20, 2013.

  1. Styx That's me inside your head.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    319
    So, here's the thing. The States have got this bomb called MOP. It's a heavy thing encased in a strong metallic layer. This enables it to penetrate the ground and attack subterranean targets, let's say, oh I don't know, a secret nuclear testing facility in Iran called Fordo or something.
    This bomb has all but been specifically made to prevent Iran's nuclear program. (They've been testing it since 2004 and it was deemed finished, until they discovered the aforementioned base, since when they've decided to adjust the bomb so it would be able to destroy it.) No problem so far.

    This is all well and good, but the thing that struck me most is how the bomb actually works. You see, it doesn't go anywere near deep enough to actually blast the facility to bits. No, what it does is blast the access tunnels and ventilation system to bits instead. I'm usually not even close to wishy-washy where war is concerned, but choking trapped scientists to death does sound a bit...medieval to me.

    I can see the rational benefits, and methods like these may be as common as the sun rising in the east (military history isn't exactly my forte), but I was somewhat surprised when I read how it works. Oh well... Let's hear your two cents.
     
  2. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    Where did you read this from? An article? Can we have a look?
    In the mean time: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mopping-up-the-usas-30000-pound-bomb-03172/
    A little bit of background.

    Not sure what's surprising about this exactly. Bunker buster, dam buster, now MOP bomb, the use of explosives to destroy fortified positions has been evolving continually since we were able to deploy them reliably and accurately. The way to deploy a deadly bomb is crucial in a battle, it can mean failure or success if you can gain a slight advantage. So this isn't surprising, I expect to see more complex or mobile bombs in the future.
    In terms of being enough to destroy access to and from this facility, and as a result slowly killing the inhabitants, I'd say that's the safest way to disable the facility almost permanently without possibly triggering a nuclear fallout, explosion, etc, and damaging the surrounding area. tactically, it's a sound strategy, ethically it's terrible, but still the 'best' outcome. Least amount of negatives and loss of life.

    This is about as barbaric as the rest of modern war I have seen. All war is terrible. Torture, murder, exploitation, imprisonment, ones is not less terrible than the other, they are all terrible. Honestly I hate what war is now, it's such a simple affair to kill people, there is no guilt anymore, no accountability. You fly a drone with an Xbox controller, aim and fire a rocket or machine gun killing with ease, no danger to yourself and so distant from the battlefield it is nothing but game of COD. This bomb as well, it's impersonal, far away, no risk and no stress. You can kill brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters just by driving to work, going into the office and ordering the hit in a paper format submission box. It's barbaric to me, to be removed from the situation, to not be stressed and worried about asking yourself is it right to take this persons life. It's mindless senseless, wrong, there is no good decision made from it.

    If it makes it any better, the ones who are slowly being gassed are individuals underground who facilitate and develop nuclear war heads to kill tens of thousands. Probably does nothing, but some people feel better attributing evil traits onto people when there lives are ended.
     
  3. Styx That's me inside your head.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    319
    Local newspaper.

    It was just the "indirectness" that surprised me, not the fact that the US has been building another bomb. Military tactics isn't my thing; I thought bombs just went boom and blew people and buildings to tiny pieces. When a bomb is actually used to trap people and leave them to rot, I find that surprising (even though in retrospect, it has been used like that countless times before). Not that I'm shocked or anything, but it serves as a reminder that we go far to get what we want. Kinda naive of me when I think about it.

    It does trigger an explosion. The explosion just won't reach the bunker, but all the other strings attached are there I'd imagine.
    I could see how that is a good outcome, but how much thought has anyone put into finding out whether or not it's the "best"? I always wonder that when the decision considered happens to be the easiest one.

    I guess we're both naive in our own right. Is really kinder to have their conscience slap them in their faces with every enemy they gun down? They have to get shit done anyway, lest their own people pay the price for it. Soldiers get tired of questioning the justice in their actions and then having to execute those actions all the same. Dehumanizing wars was the logical outcome. There's really no "right" way to resolve some conflicts. Whether you're waging war on a nation or starving its people with economic embargos, the difference in "civility" between the two isn't too hot imo. I'd rather have all our world leaders holding hands around a bonfire singing "Kumbayah" too, but what are the odds?

    Well if it makes it any worse, the assumption that they are building nukes is just that: an assumption (granted, a more than plausible one at that). That wasn't exactly my issue though. Even though they're non-combatants (mostly), they're still anything but civilians.
     
  4. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    It's quite a common tactic to use explosives to destroy the infrastructure of your enemy, since it's pretty much the only thing that can quickly and effectively destroy buildings and so on. A tactic used in the middle east during missions involving caves, if you want a modern example, is the use of projectile explosives to destroy cave entrances, funnelling enemy troops to only one location of exit of their choosing in order to kill them in a more efficient manner, or similar to this nuke facility, that they block and allow the people inside to die.

    The fallout from the radiation would destroy the eco system of the area, seeping into the soil, destroying crops and livestock that live there, as well as human population, whilst also killing all the people inside the facility anyway. It really is thee worst outcome.
    A lot of factors are taken into consideration, factors from a logistical, political, ecological, economical, cultural, ethical, weather, and many other factors and how they would be affected. Strategists over the millennia and before assess situations and plan accordingly. Usually these people pick the 'best' outcome. But remember this is the best outcome for themselves, their needs and wants. It's not always beneficial for the enemy. However, very rarely are all your enemies heartless and cruel, most of the time they're just like me and you.

    It's the choice, I find, of handling the responsibility of taking a life. If you don't regret, feel guilt, you're pretty much the psychotic serial killer we fear, just with a string of medals and plenty of victims to choose from. The mentality is wrong, you need to suffer for taking a life, more to deter random violence than simply to make people feel bad. If no one cares that they might regret or be held responsible, who else will account for you? If you can't account for yourself, then.... idk, it's terrible.
    War is still needed, but there are ways of waging it with the minimal catastrophe attributed to it. But people don't consider alternatives, they see missiles, guns, bombs as the only way and look for no alternative. How else do we overthrow corrupt governments, stop injustice and exploitation, conquer genocide. Sometimes war is unavoidable, it is the wagers that choose the civility of it.
     
  5. Styx That's me inside your head.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    319
    Exactly. Obviously they won't go lightly over the possible options, but sometimes it just seems as if they stop looking for ways to file off the sharp edges when a sufficiently convenient solution has been found. It's probably just an impression though. I find it hard to imagine any "civil" way of waging war that doesn't involve sending thousands of representatives of both factions to neutral-ass Switzerland for a huge card tournament with a winner-takes-it-all arrangement. I do, however, find the difference between between aggressor and recipient to be of utmost importance when deciding which side I'm on and even that is seldom black and white (and not the only criterion at that).
     
  6. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    There is no such thing as an honorable death or an honorable weapon. It' s either painful or it isn' t. Apparently oxygen deprivation makes you feel drunk, until your consciousness fades away. Kinda like falling asleep. I can think of many much more painful ways to bow out and it certainly looks better than a nuclear hollocaust to me.

    That being said, I wouldn' t put it past the US to use the MOP in a chilling demonstration, just to establish it as a deterant, whether its target is actually a danger or not. Wouldn' t be the first time. But frankly right now I' m much more concerned about the way they' re handling their drone strikes.
     
  7. Styx That's me inside your head.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    319
    I think looking at physical pain alone underestimates the psychological anguish that comes with being trapped. But you're right of course; in the end, it doesn't matter. Also, why do you seem to think that going nuclear is the only alternative?
     
  8. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    Well sure, it's stressful, but pain tends to come with psychological anguish too.

    I meant it' s better than just making the whole facility go boom. Or than waiting for them to use their nukes, on the off chance they' d be foolish enough to do that.
     
  9. Peace and War Bianca, you minx!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2007
    Gender:
    Cisgender Male
    1,282
    This is something I meant to bring up early but forgot. I don't see the US being stupid enough to actively send a bomb that would disable a nuclear warhead site without provocation first and plenty of intel on the situation in Iran.

    I don't see what use it could be unless it was used to disable the site in an invasion, so as not to allow MAD (Mutually Assured destruction, basically all the world's nukes being sent against each host country) to commence. It would also mean the site is possibly harvestable after an occupation retrieving said nukes and adding them to their arsenal. To use it now, it would provoke a political breakdown with Iran, sparking acts of terrorism and retaliation on a war scale. If MAD is in place, it wouldn't matter taking out one nuclear warhead facility you'd have to use them in all the politically aligned allies of Iran as well, that's potentially hundreds of operational MOP bombs used in missions. Not worth it...yet.
     
  10. Styx That's me inside your head.

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    319
    Not at all comparable, but whatever.

    Of course it's the best among those three, but I honestly hope those aren't the only options. I guess anything else would involve occupying the base and thus invading the country though. I hadn't put much thought to it, but I guess it is the best way.
     
  11. Patman Bof

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2010
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    672
    Oh I' m not sure they' d mind terribly invading the country given all its natural resources (and fail to seize them XD). North Korea on the other hand ... But yes, I failed to mention it but it' d be better than invasion too.