this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
229 points (95.3% liked)

Technology

59428 readers
3646 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

US to build new nuclear gravity bomb::Experts say this new higher-yield nuclear bomb appears intended to pave the way for retiring the older B83 megaton bomb.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

In a follow-up statement, a Pentagon spokesperson said that will include the B-21 Raider stealth bomber the Air Force now has in development with Northrop Grumman. But the U.S. now does not plan to deploy it on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon said.

This feels so out of date to me. We have guided ballistic missiles, drones, etc. Why are we still thinking about dropping an unguided bomb like this from an aircraft with a human in it? It's >1 megaton ffs - close should be "good enough"?

[–] Joker@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because they can glide a long way and are stealthier without propellant. It’s still a standoff weapon. The B21 is a stone cold killer. It can get in fairly close undetected and drop from high altitude in still relatively safe airspace. The bombs are away without anyone ever knowing it was there. Then you’ve got a stealthy bomb gliding in silently. It probably shows up on radar like a raindrop.

[–] Jumpinship@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Randrops are falling on my head

Soon we will all be dead

[–] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What happens when someone takes control of the guidance? A bomb dropped from the sky is going to obey the laws of physics and that's it.

[–] vale@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Laws of physics? What are you, a narc?

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You dont just "take over" an inertial guidance system.

[–] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, but the possibility exists.

In the same way the atoms that make up you and the atoms that make up a car wont hit eachother if you get hit. Unless there is some massive amount of fuckery theres no stopping a bomb once its dropped.

[–] thelastknowngod@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

Dispersal of liability if something goes wrong?

It's not the ground-based targeting system so that company can't be sued. It's not the onboard nav so that company can't be sued. It's not the software so that company can't be sued. It's not communication latency or interference so we can't blame it on a bad command decision to push forward without more reliable data points.

The only thing that will ultimately result in a nuclear weapon being dropped is if the guy with human eyes is looking at the target, makes a judgement call, and pushes the button.

All that being said, we should not be building more nukes regardless. This is dumb.

[–] bonus_crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You can probably fit more bomb in the same package if you odnt have to worry about propellant

[–] RedWeasel@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I would lean to reliability and speed. Ballistic missiles don’t get a lot of testing while the bombers are flown regularly and takeoff/land pretty much anywhere .