Bunker busters said to be war crime

As you know “the international community” is denouncing Russia’s use of bunker buster bombs as a war crime.

There is a rebel video on you tube examining the hole made by a bunker buster.  Looks like the bomb blast went through two meters of concrete to blow up inside a bunker.

Somehow I doubt that you will find all that many civilians under two meters of concrete inside a bunker.  But I rather suspect you might find a few members of “the international community” in there.

Looks to me that Putin is using bunker buster bombs to bust bunkers.

10 Responses to “Bunker busters said to be war crime”

  1. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    ‘But I rather suspect you might find a few members of “the international community” in there.’

    Bingo. The globalist American elites are terrified. Fuck ’em.

  2. Bruce says:

    Warheads are high explosive encased in metal with a booster and fuze. All a “bunker buster” is, is a warhead with a particularly thick case, higher yield strength steel and a sharp nose (generally ojive with a high caliber-radius-head or, these days , biconic or triconic). They also have a higher L/D typically. General purpose bombs are sufficient for most buildings where there’s at most of foot or so of concrete. GP bombs have delay fuzes for buildings. “Bunker busters” are usually used for 2m or more. They may become irrelevant in the future with ultra high strength concrete plus all the regimes are just digging into the sides of mountains since tunneling technology is cheap. When you’re 30 meters or more under rock, only a nuke will work.

  3. Wilbur Hassenfus says:

    Ha ha a few years back, some jounalists decided that white phosphorus was a “chemical weapon” because uhhh, it’s a chemical! Which Titegroup apparently isn’t?

    Of course they don’t know what makes bullets go at all, probably.

    • Minion says:

      White phosphorus has a nasty habit of melting off flesh of its victims. There are serious humanitarian issues with using white phosphorus. Therefore it is appropriate to put it in the same category as chemical weapons that also cause painful deaths to its victims, such as mustard gas,

      However, it is effective at what it does (killing people in mass), so many militaries still use it, disregarding ethics for practicality

    • Bruce says:

      There was contrroversy over “thermobarics” (aluminumized, “non-ideal” explosives) some number of years ago. I remember thinking “all explosives are thermobaric” (heat/pressure).

      • Dan Kurt says:

        Fuel Air explosives use atmospheric oxygen as the oxidizer which means that a given bomb carries more explosive potential than a conventional bomb especially since the casing is light and fragile to permit predictable dispersion prior to ignition. The down side is that the explosion is of low order: great against troops, vehicles, frame buildings but not deep bunkers.

        Dan Kurt

        • Bruce says:

          I think both FAE and aluminized explosives were being referred to as thermobarics in the press. They alleged terrible injuries that cause too much suffering like crushing overpressure injuries that maimed.

  4. Mark Citadel says:

    ‘War crimes’ in Bosnia and Serbia by Clinton went ignored. This is payback.

  5. […] In a striking reversal from Afghan War policy, the “International Community” now says Bunker busters are a war crime. […]

Leave a Reply