Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
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.
11/14/08
11/14/08