Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/10/2003 1:09:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 1:23:39 PM EDT
i think we do, especially if/when we are in another major regional conflict
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 3:56:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2003 4:10:55 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Nuclear earth penetrators will disperse deadly radioactive fallout into the atmosphere.
View Quote
That flat out aint true. What size device they think we are going to use in these? The B61 physics package only goes to 340Kt and can be set as small as 300 tons. (0.30Kt) A 300ton bomb set off 100M below surface is not going to blow debris or fallout very far at all. At 300Kt there will be a big surface eruption. Even so there is so much soil and rock above it to move it is simply not going to be able to throw anything very far into the air. This pic is the Storax Sedan test of 1962. Part of Operation Plowshare, the program to find non-combat uses for nuclear explosions. It was a test of a nominal 100Kt thermonuclear device detonated 200m below surface. [img]http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/Tests/Sedan2s.jpg[/img] the Sedan Crater, which you can go visit now at the Nevada Test Site. [img]http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/Tests/Sedan3s.jpg[/img]
Up to a point, the more deeply buried an explosive charge is, the larger the crater it will make. Beyond this point much of the material is thrown with insufficient force to clear the crater and falls back in, reducing the final size. At the optimal crater depth though quite a lot of material actually ends up back in the crater bottom. This is an advantage for a Plowshare-type crater experiment since much of the radioactivity gets returned to the crater and buried. The radiation release (as measured in terms of I-131, the most important from human health risks) was 880,000 curies, about equivalent to a 3-4 kt atmospheric fission test. Sedan was detonated at what was estimated to be the optimal crater depth in alluvial soil. 12 million tons of soil and rock were lifted into the air, 8 million tons of it falling outside the crater. The final crater was 1280 feet wide and 320 feet deep. The force of the detonation released seismic energy equivalent to an earthquake magnitude of 4.75 on the Richter Scale. The device used was similar to that used in Dominic Bluestone and Swanee and was thus a variant of the W-56 high yield missile warhead. The device had a fusion yield of 70%. The Sedan device had a diameter of 17.1 inches, a length of 38 inches, and a weight of 467.9 lb.
View Quote
A earth penetrating bomb of the kind they are talking about would penetrate to a depth equal to about half the depth the device in Sedan was buried at. Do the math. Anything 50Kt or less would be contained like this. The current B61 Mod11 penetrating bomb uses the casing of the existing 5000 pound bunker busting bomb. It stops about 100ft or so in dirt. Or penetrates 20ft of reenforced concrete. Its low power setting is only 300tons. So its hard to imagine much radioactive dust scatter. And we do need them. The heat and radiation given off by a nuclear bomb is one of the few things that can guarentee the destruction of Biological and Chemical weapons without a accidental release.
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 4:04:14 PM EDT
Hell yes we need them!
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 5:45:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless: Currently, the Pentagon's only nuclear earth penetrator, the B61-11, can achieve a depth of only 20 feet in dry earth. quote] Flat out WRONG. Did you lift this from the Protester's site? Or is it your own typo / mistake? And their further assertion of '100meters of concrete' is also BULLSHIT. ArmdLbrl has it more correct -
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: The current B61 Mod11 penetrating bomb uses the casing of the existing 5000 pound bunker busting bomb. [b]It stops about 100ft or so in dirt. Or penetrates 20ft of reenforced concrete.[/b]
Read about the 'Bunker Buster' of the '91 Gulf War, desig. GBU-28 - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm Manf from surplus 8" artillery cannon barrels, for their hardened tool steel. 100' penetration in dirt. 'JDAM' (GBU-29, GBU-30, GBU-31, GBU-32) weapons are nothing but a GPS-guided robotic tail unit bolted on to standard Mk83, 84 (1000 lb, 2000 lb) 'dumb' bombs. and btw, the B-61 / Mk61 wasn't designed as a 'penetrator', but as an external-mount fighter-carried tactical nuke. For use against massed armor, naval targets, and infrastructure targets like dams. If it 'penetrates', it's because the radar-fuse failed ;) And yes, we need them. IF we'd had a few to hammer Tora Bora with, we'd be breathing molecules of Osama Bin Laden by now.
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 6:35:20 PM EDT
[b]Do we need nuclear bunker busters? [/b] Maybe not, but they sound cool as hell.
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 6:57:56 PM EDT
This may have been lost in the public mind/eye over the years, but; The state of Libya has been constucting and using, for nearly 15 years, a massinve underground research complex bored through and under a mountain. Very similar to our own Cheyenne mountain, this facility is IMPENETRABLE with even surface-burst nukes. For years, DARPA and the DOD have researched the issue. I'm 100% convinced that the move to test (c'mon, we've already got the thing) a sub-surface deep-penetrating nuke is DIRECTLY aimed at eliminating this particular facility.
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 7:26:33 PM EDT
Other options: Ever heard of Project Thor? Think "Flying Crowbars From Outer Space". The idea is to drop a NON-ARMED missile made of a tough, dense material from orbit, equipped with a guidance paackage. It's massive, it's heavy, it's dense, and it's moving at oh-my-god speed when it impacts. Its kinetic enery yield is such that there is no conventional explosive known that would contribute anything significant to its destructive power. Only a nuclear warhead would suffice to make a substantial improvement on its already considerable weapons power. Essentially, it could be as simple as a thick steel bar with a ceramic re-entry nose cone, steerable fins, and a basic guidance package. It could be mass produced for a few hundred bucks each, and they would be carried into orbit by the dozens if not hundreds by launch vehicles. The ground penetration potential of one of these weapons might be measured in hundreds if not thousands of feet, depending on soil conditions. They should be able to strike and penetrate to bedrock with ease at any point on the landmass of the planet. Back that up with a nuke of suitable size, and there's not a bunker on the planet that'd have a ghost of a chance against it. And remember, nobody says you have to use just one. Sending down a flock of them, one after the other, into the same hole, would pretty much ensure that there's almost no limit to how deep a hole we can blast. With our most modern guidance systems, we can probably put several into one hole, too. Project Thor was evaluated (at least in concept) back in the 60's and was allegedly abandoned, but something tells me that the idea has been implemented in some manner. CJ
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 7:43:19 PM EDT
This is like asking, "Does TrickyVic need another gun?". Hell yes.
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 8:22:21 PM EDT
[b]Do we need nuclear bunker busters?[/b] Why, are you thinking group buy? cynic
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 11:12:57 PM EDT
No way. Not a chance. We will never use nuclear weapons unless national survival is at stake. No matter the rhetoric about WMD being one and the same. I like the idea of those precision guided concrete bombs used in DS 2. A block of concrete weighing 500 lbs will destroy a tank as sure as a 500 lb bomb. Add a hardended penetrator and drop them one on top of the other from 50,000 feet and you could dig a hole to China.
Link Posted: 6/10/2003 11:30:17 PM EDT
Group buy does sound good to me. I could use a couple around the house.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 10:10:55 AM EDT
Do we need nuclear bunker busters?
View Quote
Hmmm... Do I "need" an AR-15? Probably not, but it sure is cool to have one "just in case."
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 10:30:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2003 10:31:23 AM EDT by HKocher]
Two words: "Mole People." Yes, we need nuclear bunker busters, how else will we defeat them???
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 10:43:50 AM EDT
Yeah, I am fond of the crowbars from space idea myself. Then maybe we can actually USE those ICBMs and SLBMs we have been building all these years. We started to construct a MaRV for Peacemaker and Trident D3 during the Regan years. But it was one of the things traded turing the START treaty. But a solid, non-nuclear warhead would not be covered. There still would be work needed to combine MaRV and penetrator technology.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 11:05:08 AM EDT
i am no nuclear arms expert by any means, but last night npr had several experts on the radio regarding this topic. one of them was a fellow that spent 20 years designing nuclear shit that goes "kaboom". to a man, they all agreed that underground explosions were 'dirtier' than airburst nukes. regardless, i would like the option of having them in our arsenal. just like the moab, i think they be very effective in taking out those that need it.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 11:27:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: Other options: Ever heard of Project Thor? Think "Flying Crowbars From Outer Space". CJ
View Quote
Here's a link: [url]http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html[/url]
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 11:36:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By HKocher: Two words: "Mole People." Yes, we need nuclear bunker busters, how else will we defeat them???
View Quote
You forgot about the C.H.U.D.S. too
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 1:02:16 PM EDT
I'd rather have them and not need them, than need them and not have them. Build on, dudes!
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 1:12:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CAMPYBOB: i am no nuclear arms expert by any means, but last night npr had several experts on the radio regarding this topic. one of them was a fellow that spent 20 years designing nuclear shit that goes "kaboom". to a man, they all agreed that underground explosions were 'dirtier' than airburst nukes. regardless, i would like the option of having them in our arsenal. just like the moab, i think they be very effective in taking out those that need it.
View Quote
I can only guess that they keep assuming that we would use a device set for max yeald for this. But if a underground explosion is so dirty, do they care to explain the results of the various cratering tests like Sedan? I cannot explain why so called 'experts' would say such a thing when we have historical examples that prove otherwise.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 1:13:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CAMPYBOB: -snip- but last night npr -snip-
View Quote
[b]HUH?[/b] [;)] Is you radio tuning knob broken? [:D]
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 2:06:10 PM EDT
Now that prairie dogs are the enemy, I say go for it.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 2:12:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 2:51:09 PM EDT
What would happen if an ICBM had the nuke replaced with HE?
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 2:55:39 PM EDT
Some weak ass ICBM. Mini-nukes arent such a bad idea for larger bunkers (IE: like the massive ones our presidents still have from the cold-war).
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 3:12:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By fearlessrogue: What would happen if an ICBM had the nuke replaced with HE?
View Quote
Probably explode on the way in from the heat. That is something you don't have to worry about with solids. And there wouldn't be a whole lot of explosive able to fit in there anyways. But somebody posted pics from Kawajalin Atoll of the after effects of a dummy concrete filled MIRV strike. It was, to say the least, impressive. The post wasn't that long ago. If you have general search capability you can find it.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 3:50:31 PM EDT
Once you let that nuclear genie out of the bottle, it sure is hard to get him to go back in. We might want to give this a second thought.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 4:04:34 PM EDT
Why? How would mini-nukes in the sub to low kiloton range cause the end of the world even if we fired hundreds of them? I dont think that it is appropriate to aniahlate whole cities because somone slimed some of our troops with anthrax or VX. And we don't have the ability to reply in kind anymore. We have been incinerating our chem and bio weapons. Small nukes are a proper retaliation to small nukes, dirty bombs, and bio or chemical attacks.
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 4:15:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson: Ever heard of Project Thor? Think "Flying Crowbars From Outer Space".
View Quote
... Kinda like a man made "Lucifer's Hammer" huh?
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 4:22:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 4:38:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/11/2003 4:47:29 PM EDT by CAMPYBOB]
i listen to npr all the time...i like many of the programs and the news keeps me informed as to what my enemies are up to. besides, my new "liberal filter mk. IV" is working just fine. a.l., as aimless explained, the basis for the explanation was the amount of contaminated crap getting tossed and amount of crap left that is hot. how long it's hot and to what extent? i really have no clue. but, let's look a chernobyl. not exactly a whole lotta yield going on there as far as kaboom'ing goes...and the place is still a hot zone. how long was that crater hot? and to what degree? how hot is it down where the bomb was detonated? what condition is the aquafier in? no matter how you slice it, all nukes (with the exception of the nuetron bomb and the like) are pretty nasty. but, as i said, if some upstart third world shithole glows for a few decades...lets just use the light as a navigational beacon. i'm still of the opinion we can conventionally lay great waste to anyone we chose. cruise, moabs, jdams, assorted h.e. ....it's all good!
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 5:15:35 PM EDT
No, we dont need them. We do need to say we do have them. GG
Link Posted: 6/11/2003 5:55:11 PM EDT
Do we need nuclear bunker busters? NO Do I want nuclear bunker busters? Hell YES! ED
Top Top