Well, suicide bombers have kinda taken that over. They pad themselves with nails and rat poison (anti-coagulant). Not exactly poison but it'll fuck you up just as bad.
Wouldn't the cruelest bomb be the one that fell on Japan? I know the popular notion is that dirty bombs are somehow more outrageous, but in all actuality, the bomb that kills the most people is the "cruelest".
@know1: I think napalm is probably crueler. You are trying to burn people to death as opposed to just kill them and get them out of the picture. Plus, I hear it sticks to babies.
@Jestermeister: Actually, even worst than napalm is self igniting napalm. They would mix white phosphorous in with the napalm so it would ignite as exposed to air. What would also happen is when hitting the skin, the napalm might be brushed off, but the phosphorous chips would burn their way into the skin, and could smolder for weeks, with the only slight relief coming from completely immersing the affected body part in water.
Way to go telling them how deep and how strong their sh!t has to be to try to withstand the impact. Hopefully it is a lie and only 1/2 of actual capacity. "oops did we say 200 feet of 5kpsi reinforce concrete... our bad, we mean way more than that."
It wouldn't be a bad idea to under state the capability in the public eye.
@Nick: That was supposed to be a reply to your comment. My commenting is off today. I blame sunspots. Either that or the ninja assassins that, according to his lawyer, killed David Carridine are screwing with me.
@TrollSlayer: Hi folks. Billy Mays here. Are you tired of your ordinance NOT penetrating sub-terranian bunkers, even when fitted with an Awesome-Auger? Then have I got the solution for you! It's the Mighty Blow-It...Up.
@Hello Mister Walrus: The construction of this is what we'd term a "state secret". I'm sure the design/manufacturing facilities will have a full complement of military security forces on duty 24/7/365.
@Hello Mister Walrus: Overall I thought it an odd situation for a group photo op. "Look at this thing we made that will kill tons of people by burying them alive in their caves! This is going to make for a great Christmas card this year!"
@LastVigilante: Why wouldn't a group take a photo op after completing a project? If they were ashamed of what they were doing then they wouldn't be doing it. Who knows if it will ever kill people. It might be good as a deterrant towards douchebag moves by terrorist nations when they know we could get them anytime and anywhere if we had the intel.
@fuzz54: The only way that it will never kill people is if our military never decides to deploy it. We could turn all of the Middle East into a glass parking lot, and that's still not deterrent enough. I can't see that this will have any effect on the war against terrorism except by being used. Either that or it'll just inspire them to start building their bunkers under sites that they know we won't bomb, like schools.
dude, if i worked at boeing i would so be the dude sittin' on top of that thing with a cowboy hat. i calling my friend john and telling him to get me a guest pass.
@hanspecans: They may also be relatives and team mates of people KILLED by the people who will be cowering in this bunker for a reason. It's a concrete hardened bunker, not a tornado shelter.
But anyway, I doubt that those are it's real capabilities. Otherwise Kim Jong Il, after reading Gizmodo, could foil them by building a bunker with 61 feet of concrete protection. The actual missile is probably more powerful.
Actually I'm surprised that we're still in the "bigger is better" mindset. I thought we were going "lighter and smarter" (i.e., Predator drones) against a clearly unconventional enemy.
But at least everyone will know America has a bigger penis than all the other countries.
@Gruv: The military just has thousands of projects going on at once. Naturally, some of them are going to involve bigger things that blow up. For every new big ass bomb, there are lots of other "unconventional" projects like the weird snake thing in the other article. When I was in college, I was amazed by how many engineering labs were funded by DARPA - wall climbing robots, autonomous vehicles, lasers, mini helicopters, everything.
Why the attitude? If we didn't spend all that money on "bigger and better bombs" the rest our fair-weather-allies would be forced have military budgets of their own. Just look at our military spending as welfare spending for you and yours, maybe say thank you from time to time, and then move along.
@Gruv: Why yes, we do. As of 1986, you'd have to take the next ten biggest penii combined to (almost) equal our one massive penis.
On a more serious note, in a way we _aren't_ going the "bigger is better" route with this. If we were, we'd have just gone back 64 years to the two most powerful bombs ever dropped in a wartime capacity. No conventional bunker would survive that sort of attack, and on the off chance that they actually did have a NORAD-style bunker, they'd pretty much be stuck in there for a while until the worst of the radiation had cleared up.
Actually, your military spending has got us into a l-o-t of trouble over the years. Maybe you could thank US for trying to hold you guys back from your own worst excesses. Not that you've always listened. 'nam, anyone?
@xThadd: Ah, you mean the whole mess that the French started, and that we might well have won if the Secretary of Defense hadn't been so obsessed over the cost of bullets? Yeah, my dad (who, along with his brother, served in that war) would tell you flat out that we lost because we _didn't_ spend enough.
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/26/09
Which only serves to ironically re-enforce my very fears!
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/26/09
06/10/09
It wouldn't be a bad idea to under state the capability in the public eye.
06/10/09
06/10/09
You must believe everything you read on the inturnedt.
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
I also have a GBU-28, which if you put two together would be a GBU-56...
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
VIDEO!!!!
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
The construction of this is what we'd term a "state secret". I'm sure the design/manufacturing facilities will have a full complement of military security forces on duty 24/7/365.
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/11/09
The only way that it will never kill people is if our military never decides to deploy it. We could turn all of the Middle East into a glass parking lot, and that's still not deterrent enough. I can't see that this will have any effect on the war against terrorism except by being used. Either that or it'll just inspire them to start building their bunkers under sites that they know we won't bomb, like schools.
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
but can it penetrate Osama Bin Laden's vagina?
06/10/09
But anyway, I doubt that those are it's real capabilities. Otherwise Kim Jong Il, after reading Gizmodo, could foil them by building a bunker with 61 feet of concrete protection. The actual missile is probably more powerful.
06/10/09
Actually I'm surprised that we're still in the "bigger is better" mindset. I thought we were going "lighter and smarter" (i.e., Predator drones) against a clearly unconventional enemy.
But at least everyone will know America has a bigger penis than all the other countries.
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
"America. F--k yeah."
Why the attitude? If we didn't spend all that money on "bigger and better bombs" the rest our fair-weather-allies would be forced have military budgets of their own. Just look at our military spending as welfare spending for you and yours, maybe say thank you from time to time, and then move along.
06/10/09
Why yes, we do. As of 1986, you'd have to take the next ten biggest penii combined to (almost) equal our one massive penis.
On a more serious note, in a way we _aren't_ going the "bigger is better" route with this. If we were, we'd have just gone back 64 years to the two most powerful bombs ever dropped in a wartime capacity. No conventional bunker would survive that sort of attack, and on the off chance that they actually did have a NORAD-style bunker, they'd pretty much be stuck in there for a while until the worst of the radiation had cleared up.
06/10/09
Er, thank you. I guess.
Actually, your military spending has got us into a l-o-t of trouble over the years. Maybe you could thank US for trying to hold you guys back from your own worst excesses. Not that you've always listened. 'nam, anyone?
06/11/09
Ah, you mean the whole mess that the French started, and that we might well have won if the Secretary of Defense hadn't been so obsessed over the cost of bullets? Yeah, my dad (who, along with his brother, served in that war) would tell you flat out that we lost because we _didn't_ spend enough.