i think we do, especially if/when we are in another major regional conflict

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]



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.

Hell yes we need them!

[b]Do we need nuclear bunker busters?  [/b]

Maybe not, but they sound cool as hell.

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.

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

This is like asking, "Does TrickyVic need another gun?". Hell yes.

[b]Do we need nuclear bunker busters?[/b]

Why, are you thinking group buy?

cynic

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.

Group buy does sound good to me.  I could use a couple around the house.

Hmmm...  Do I "need" an AR-15?  Probably not, but it sure is cool to have one "just in case."

Two words: "Mole People."

Yes, we need nuclear bunker busters, how else will we defeat them???

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.

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.

Here's a link:

[url]http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html[/url]

You forgot about the C.H.U.D.S. too

I'd rather have them and not need them, than need them and not have them.

Build on, dudes!

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.

[b]HUH?[/b] [;)]

Is you radio tuning knob broken?  [:D]

Now that prairie dogs are the enemy, I say go for it.

What would happen if an ICBM had the nuke replaced with HE?

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).

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.

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.

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.

... Kinda like a man made "Lucifer's Hammer" huh?

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!

No, we dont need them. We do need to say we do have them.
GG

Do we need nuclear bunker busters?  NO

Do I want nuclear bunker busters? Hell YES!

ED