Who do you drop a nuclear bunker buster on? [Archive]

Al Dykes

June 2nd 04, 03:42 PM

In article >, Henry J Cobb > wrote:
>http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200406020904.asp
> > Gen. Richard Myers, in a May 2003 briefing, explained that a nuclear
> > bunker buster could minimize the threat from biological or chemical
> > weapons at an enemy site.
>
>By the time the nuclear bunker buster is fielded, both Iran and North
>Korea will have nuclear armed missiles capable of at least striking
>their neighbors, so who exactly would you use the RNEP on?
>
>You're not going to find all of their launch locations before you strike
>and afterwards they have nothing to lose by launching.
>
>-HJC

Some people think that all of Iraq's alleged bio and chemical
materials are is a really deep tunnel in Syria. They claim that
conventional bunker busters will not go deep enough, and risk
spreading the material around. Only a BB Nuc will fit the mission.

My take on this is

(a) The claim is made by the same people that said they knew where
the NBC material was, before the war.

(b)Lots of countries (and many bright higb school kids) can make
Sarin, and other nasty material. The stuff is very hard to distribute
effectivlly, as shown by the Sarin attack in Japan, and the Christian
cult in Idaho (?) that tried to spread biologicals in the public food
supply, the handful of people that died in the antrax attacks, and the
fact that the Sarin 155mm shell they found in Iraq caused littlre more
than a headache. One country with a big stickpile is a problem, but
not the end of the world.

(c) Any country that did have some of this material will learn to keep
it in several low-profile locations rather than one huge tunnel that
is probably detected by our spies and sat's (if we are competant)

--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Henry J Cobb

June 2nd 04, 03:56 PM

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Deep-Buried command and control centers,WMD manufacturing/storage
> facilities.(bio-chem,not solely nuclear)

How would you know which tunnels to nuke?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031114-dprk-tunnels.htm
> Even if the Pentagon were to develop nuclear "bunker-busters" --
> relatively small bombs that penetrate the surface before exploding --
> the United States would be hard-pressed to use them successfully
> without knowing which of the thousands of bunkers scattered throughout
> the country were the correct targets.

-HJC

Bernardz

June 2nd 04, 04:35 PM

In article >, says...
> Jim Yanik wrote:
> > Deep-Buried command and control centers,WMD manufacturing/storage
> > facilities.(bio-chem,not solely nuclear)
>
> How would you know which tunnels to nuke?

You take a punt.

>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031114-dprk-tunnels.htm
> > Even if the Pentagon were to develop nuclear "bunker-busters" --
> > relatively small bombs that penetrate the surface before exploding --
> > the United States would be hard-pressed to use them successfully
> > without knowing which of the thousands of bunkers scattered throughout
> > the country were the correct targets.
>
> -HJC
>

--
History records those that write what happened.

Observations of Bernard - No 60

Howard Berkowitz

June 2nd 04, 08:55 PM

In article >, (Al Dykes)
wrote:

> In article >, Henry J Cobb >
> wrote:
> >http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200406020904.asp
> > > Gen. Richard Myers, in a May 2003 briefing, explained that a nuclear
> > > bunker buster could minimize the threat from biological or chemical
> > > weapons at an enemy site.
> >
> >By the time the nuclear bunker buster is fielded, both Iran and North
> >Korea will have nuclear armed missiles capable of at least striking
> >their neighbors, so who exactly would you use the RNEP on?
> >
> >You're not going to find all of their launch locations before you strike
> >and afterwards they have nothing to lose by launching.
> >
> >-HJC
>
>
> Some people think that all of Iraq's alleged bio and chemical
> materials are is a really deep tunnel in Syria.

Some people might do well to look at the geology of Syria. The flatter
parts are generally sandstone or an equivalent crumbly rock that won't
support tunneling much deeper than irrigation. A start was once made on
a Damascus subway, but apparently abandoned because every tunnel would
have to be steel- or concrete-lined.

The more mountainous areas are karst, which does tend to have natural
caves, but doesn't lend itself enormously to tunneling. Serious deep
excavations, like Cheyenne Mountain, are granite or similar hard rock.

Keith Willshaw

June 2nd 04, 11:40 PM

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, (Al Dykes)
> wrote:
>

>
> Some people might do well to look at the geology of Syria. The flatter
> parts are generally sandstone or an equivalent crumbly rock that won't
> support tunneling much deeper than irrigation. A start was once made on
> a Damascus subway, but apparently abandoned because every tunnel would
> have to be steel- or concrete-lined.
>

As is every tunnel on the London Underground, except for some of the
older tunnels were cast iron segments or brick linings are used.

> The more mountainous areas are karst, which does tend to have natural
> caves, but doesn't lend itself enormously to tunneling. Serious deep
> excavations, like Cheyenne Mountain, are granite or similar hard rock.

You may wish to think again

London is built on clay, I guess that means you think they couldnt
possibly build the London Underground

The sea bed under the English Channel is made of soft chalk.
Somehow though they managed to build a tunnel under it.

The technical breakthrough that makes tunnelling in soft
materials isnt exactly new . The use of a tunnelling shield
and brick lining dates in modern times was introduced
by Marc Brunel but the technique seems to have been known
to the Romans.

In the middle east the techniques for building extensive
underground tunnels have been know since antiquity.
The network of irrigation tunnels in Iran are known
as the qanat and in Arabia they call them the falaj.

Keith

Howard Berkowitz

June 3rd 04, 12:10 AM

In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, (Al Dykes)
> > wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Some people might do well to look at the geology of Syria. The flatter
> > parts are generally sandstone or an equivalent crumbly rock that won't
> > support tunneling much deeper than irrigation. A start was once made on
> > a Damascus subway, but apparently abandoned because every tunnel would
> > have to be steel- or concrete-lined.
> >
>
> As is every tunnel on the London Underground, except for some of the
> older tunnels were cast iron segments or brick linings are used.
>
> > The more mountainous areas are karst, which does tend to have natural
> > caves, but doesn't lend itself enormously to tunneling. Serious deep
> > excavations, like Cheyenne Mountain, are granite or similar hard rock.
>
> You may wish to think again
>
> London is built on clay, I guess that means you think they couldnt
> possibly build the London Underground

No, I said _serious_ tunneling. Cheyenne Mountain is a good example of a
serious tunneling excavation (and other system) intended to withstand
near misses of nuclear weapons, or deep-penetrating PGMs with
conventional warheads.
>
> The sea bed under the English Channel is made of soft chalk.
> Somehow though they managed to build a tunnel under it.
>
> The technical breakthrough that makes tunnelling in soft
> materials isnt exactly new . The use of a tunnelling shield
> and brick lining dates in modern times was introduced
> by Marc Brunel but the technique seems to have been known
> to the Romans.

And won't have much effect on a modern penetrating or high blast weapon.
Cheyenne Mountain isn't only granite, it's granite in a matrix of steel
stabilizing bolts. Zhiguli is presumably comparable.
>
> In the middle east the techniques for building extensive
> underground tunnels have been know since antiquity.
> The network of irrigation tunnels in Iran are known
> as the qanat and in Arabia they call them the falaj.

Exactly. The qanats are what I'm describing in the Syrian lowlands. They
don't and can't go deeply enough to withstand modern bombing.

Jim Yanik

June 3rd 04, 12:45 AM

Henry J Cobb > wrote in :

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Deep-Buried command and control centers,WMD manufacturing/storage
>> facilities.(bio-chem,not solely nuclear)
>
> How would you know which tunnels to nuke?
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031114-dprk-tunnels.htm
> > Even if the Pentagon were to develop nuclear "bunker-busters" --
> > relatively small bombs that penetrate the surface before exploding --
> > the United States would be hard-pressed to use them successfully
> > without knowing which of the thousands of bunkers scattered throughout
> > the country were the correct targets.
>
> -HJC

Consider that the deep buried tunnels would be used only for high-value
items like special weapons,and command/control. Not for ordianry military
material.

"thousands of bunkers"??
Not the hard-to-make very deep,in-hard-rock sort,for that quantity.
And high-value targets have a way of revealing themselves by activity and
types of vehicles visiting them.

I'd note also that the global security guy(John Pike) is anti-nuke along
with anti-missile defense.(bias)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Paul F Austin

June 3rd 04, 01:25 AM

"Henry J Cobb" wrote
> Jim Yanik wrote:
> > Deep-Buried command and control centers,WMD manufacturing/storage
> > facilities.(bio-chem,not solely nuclear)
>
> How would you know which tunnels to nuke?
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031114-dprk-tunnels.htm
> > Even if the Pentagon were to develop nuclear "bunker-busters" --
> > relatively small bombs that penetrate the surface before exploding --
> > the United States would be hard-pressed to use them successfully
> > without knowing which of the thousands of bunkers scattered throughout
> > the country were the correct targets.

More to the point, how do you know_where_the bunker is. A few years ago,
AvWeek had a brief note that Swedish and German companies sold hard-rock
boring equipment that could cut a 20 foot shaft at the rate of 200 feet a
day. It doesn't take many months before for the circle of uncertainty
starting from where the bore hole starts gets beyond the lethal distance of
_any_ bunker buster, nuclear or not.

The cratering radius of a 300KT (B-61) nuclear explosion in rock is about
900 feet. If the bunker is more than 10X that distance (45 days drilling), a
maximum yeild explosion is unlikely to collapse the bunker.

Without very good HUMINT indeed, you aren't going to know the location of
the target with enough precision to kill it.

Paul F Austin

June 3rd 04, 01:39 AM

"Al Dykes" wrote
> My take on this is

is ill informed.

>
> (b)Lots of countries (and many bright higb school kids) can make
> Sarin, and other nasty material. The stuff is very hard to distribute
> effectivlly, as shown by the Sarin attack in Japan, and the Christian
> cult in Idaho (?) that tried to spread biologicals in the public food
> supply, the handful of people that died in the antrax attacks, and the
> fact that the Sarin 155mm shell they found in Iraq caused littlre more
> than a headache. One country with a big stickpile is a problem, but
> not the end of the world.

As it happens, Sarin in impure form breaks down quickly and it's difficult
to make in pure form. Aum Shinrikyo found that out. The 155mm shell was a
binary munition that depends on setback on firing to start the reaction of
the two reagents and the spinning of the shell to get thorough mixing. Both
were missing when the shell was used as a IED.

While Sarin isn't very effective against MOPP'ed up troops, it's devastating
against unprotected populations. : http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

Kevin Brooks

June 3rd 04, 03:41 AM

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, (Al
Dykes)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Some people might do well to look at the geology of Syria. The
flatter
> > > parts are generally sandstone or an equivalent crumbly rock that won't
> > > support tunneling much deeper than irrigation. A start was once made
on
> > > a Damascus subway, but apparently abandoned because every tunnel would
> > > have to be steel- or concrete-lined.
> > >
> >
> > As is every tunnel on the London Underground, except for some of the
> > older tunnels were cast iron segments or brick linings are used.
> >
> > > The more mountainous areas are karst, which does tend to have natural
> > > caves, but doesn't lend itself enormously to tunneling. Serious deep
> > > excavations, like Cheyenne Mountain, are granite or similar hard rock.
> >
> > You may wish to think again
> >
> > London is built on clay, I guess that means you think they couldnt
> > possibly build the London Underground
>
> No, I said _serious_ tunneling. Cheyenne Mountain is a good example of a
> serious tunneling excavation (and other system) intended to withstand
> near misses of nuclear weapons, or deep-penetrating PGMs with
> conventional warheads.

Cheyanne Mountain was designed and built long before the concept of
deep-penetrating PGM's became a reality, so it is doubtful that it was
"intended" to handle that event; it was intended to withstand anything but a
direct hit from a high yield nuclear warhead, though.

> >
> > The sea bed under the English Channel is made of soft chalk.
> > Somehow though they managed to build a tunnel under it.
> >
> > The technical breakthrough that makes tunnelling in soft
> > materials isnt exactly new . The use of a tunnelling shield
> > and brick lining dates in modern times was introduced
> > by Marc Brunel but the technique seems to have been known
> > to the Romans.
>
> And won't have much effect on a modern penetrating or high blast weapon.
> Cheyenne Mountain isn't only granite, it's granite in a matrix of steel
> stabilizing bolts. Zhiguli is presumably comparable.
> >
> > In the middle east the techniques for building extensive
> > underground tunnels have been know since antiquity.
> > The network of irrigation tunnels in Iran are known
> > as the qanat and in Arabia they call them the falaj.
>
> Exactly. The qanats are what I'm describing in the Syrian lowlands. They
> don't and can't go deeply enough to withstand modern bombing.

If you think that such facilities can only be built in granite, think again.
I'd be very surprised if Mount Weather in Virginia, one of the
formerly-secret (along with Raven Rock in Maryland and the congrssional
facility at White Hot Springs (IIRC) in West Virginia) emergency relocation
sites, was built in anything other than that Karst limestone you ridiculed
earlier. Mount Weather and Raven Rock are both tunnel complexes.

Brooks

James Lerch

June 3rd 04, 04:04 AM

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 20:25:32 -0400, "Paul F Austin"
> wrote:

>The cratering radius of a 300KT (B-61) nuclear explosion in rock is about
>900 feet. If the bunker is more than 10X that distance (45 days drilling), a
>maximum yeild explosion is unlikely to collapse the bunker.

Still, even if the bunker survived, how exactly would the occupants
exit, if the entrance hole (or holes) no longer exist?

Take Care,
James Lerch
http://lerch.no-ip.com/atm (My telescope construction, Testing, and Coating site)

Press on: nothing in the world can take the place of perseverance.
Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
Calvin Coolidge

miso

June 3rd 04, 08:12 AM

Those that try to use the "Saddam snuck the WMDs into Syria" line
really need to think about what they are saying. First, the US "knew"
where the WMDs were located, so how could they be moved. Second, the
whole idea of the war was to get those WMDs before they left the
country and ended up in the hands of a terrorist. So saying the WMDs
were snuck out is like admitting defeat. Sean Hannity says that stupid
Syria line periodically, so I guess the neocons haven't thought it
through.

The US bombed some location at the start of the war that was supposed
to be a bunker where Saddam and crew were meeting. Not really that
hardened, but supposedly underground. When the dust settled
(literally), there was no bunker there.

You can watch them bore a tunnel at the Yucca Mountain Project here:
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/

(Al Dykes) wrote in message >...
> In article >, Henry J Cobb > wrote:
> >http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200406020904.asp
> > > Gen. Richard Myers, in a May 2003 briefing, explained that a nuclear
> > > bunker buster could minimize the threat from biological or chemical
> > > weapons at an enemy site.
> >
> >By the time the nuclear bunker buster is fielded, both Iran and North
> >Korea will have nuclear armed missiles capable of at least striking
> >their neighbors, so who exactly would you use the RNEP on?
> >
> >You're not going to find all of their launch locations before you strike
> >and afterwards they have nothing to lose by launching.
> >
> >-HJC
>
>
> Some people think that all of Iraq's alleged bio and chemical
> materials are is a really deep tunnel in Syria. They claim that
> conventional bunker busters will not go deep enough, and risk
> spreading the material around. Only a BB Nuc will fit the mission.
>
> My take on this is
>
> (a) The claim is made by the same people that said they knew where
> the NBC material was, before the war.
>
> (b)Lots of countries (and many bright higb school kids) can make
> Sarin, and other nasty material. The stuff is very hard to distribute
> effectivlly, as shown by the Sarin attack in Japan, and the Christian
> cult in Idaho (?) that tried to spread biologicals in the public food
> supply, the handful of people that died in the antrax attacks, and the
> fact that the Sarin 155mm shell they found in Iraq caused littlre more
> than a headache. One country with a big stickpile is a problem, but
> not the end of the world.
>
> (c) Any country that did have some of this material will learn to keep
> it in several low-profile locations rather than one huge tunnel that
> is probably detected by our spies and sat's (if we are competant)

Keith Willshaw

June 3rd 04, 09:30 AM

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, (Al
Dykes)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Some people might do well to look at the geology of Syria. The
flatter
> > > parts are generally sandstone or an equivalent crumbly rock that won't
> > > support tunneling much deeper than irrigation. A start was once made
on
> > > a Damascus subway, but apparently abandoned because every tunnel would
> > > have to be steel- or concrete-lined.
> > >
> >
> > As is every tunnel on the London Underground, except for some of the
> > older tunnels were cast iron segments or brick linings are used.
> >
> > > The more mountainous areas are karst, which does tend to have natural
> > > caves, but doesn't lend itself enormously to tunneling. Serious deep
> > > excavations, like Cheyenne Mountain, are granite or similar hard rock.
> >
> > You may wish to think again
> >
> > London is built on clay, I guess that means you think they couldnt
> > possibly build the London Underground
>
> No, I said _serious_ tunneling. Cheyenne Mountain is a good example of a
> serious tunneling excavation (and other system) intended to withstand
> near misses of nuclear weapons, or deep-penetrating PGMs with
> conventional warheads.

I rather think that the hundreds of miles of tunnels
that make up the London Underground system are
really quite serious.

So were the Cabinet war rooms and the underground
military HQ in London and Northwood.

All built under clay

> >
> > The sea bed under the English Channel is made of soft chalk.
> > Somehow though they managed to build a tunnel under it.
> >
> > The technical breakthrough that makes tunnelling in soft
> > materials isnt exactly new . The use of a tunnelling shield
> > and brick lining dates in modern times was introduced
> > by Marc Brunel but the technique seems to have been known
> > to the Romans.
>
> And won't have much effect on a modern penetrating or high blast weapon.

It wasnt suggested it would, however a 100ft of clay or
sandstone, especially if properly reinforces is rather
difficult to penetrate using conventional weapons.

> Cheyenne Mountain isn't only granite, it's granite in a matrix of steel
> stabilizing bolts. Zhiguli is presumably comparable.

I think the Syrians know about steel and concrete too.

> >
> > In the middle east the techniques for building extensive
> > underground tunnels have been know since antiquity.
> > The network of irrigation tunnels in Iran are known
> > as the qanat and in Arabia they call them the falaj.
>
> Exactly. The qanats are what I'm describing in the Syrian lowlands. They
> don't and can't go deeply enough to withstand modern bombing.

But tunnels built using modern techniques can and do.

Keith

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Paul F Austin

June 3rd 04, 11:43 AM

"James Lerch" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 20:25:32 -0400, "Paul F Austin"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >The cratering radius of a 300KT (B-61) nuclear explosion in rock is about
> >900 feet. If the bunker is more than 10X that distance (45 days
drilling), a
> >maximum yeild explosion is unlikely to collapse the bunker.
>
> Still, even if the bunker survived, how exactly would the occupants
> exit, if the entrance hole (or holes) no longer exist?

That's a decent point although connecting to other exits e.g. railway
tunnels or basements of existing buildings. isn't impossible.

Laurence Doering

June 3rd 04, 04:56 PM

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:41:09 -0400, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
> If you think that such facilities can only be built in granite, think again.
> I'd be very surprised if Mount Weather in Virginia, one of the
> formerly-secret (along with Raven Rock in Maryland and the congrssional
> facility at White Hot Springs (IIRC) in West Virginia) emergency relocation
> sites, was built in anything other than that Karst limestone you ridiculed
> earlier. Mount Weather and Raven Rock are both tunnel complexes.

Dunno about Mount Weather or the Congressional Continuity of Government
site located under the Greenbriar resort in Sulphur Springs, West Virginia,
but Raven Rock (Site R) is dug into part of the Catoctin anticline (the
site is actually in Pennsylvania, just north of the Maryland border.)

The Catoctin anticline is composed of late Precambrian basalt lava flows
that later metamorphosed into the characteristic Catoctin "greenstone"
(metabasalt), which is considerably harder than limestone.

ljd

Howard Berkowitz

June 3rd 04, 05:55 PM

In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >, (Al
> Dykes)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Some people might do well to look at the geology of Syria. The
> flatter
> > > > parts are generally sandstone or an equivalent crumbly rock that
> > > > won't
> > > > support tunneling much deeper than irrigation. A start was once
> > > > made
> on
> > > > a Damascus subway, but apparently abandoned because every tunnel
> > > > would
> > > > have to be steel- or concrete-lined.
> > > >
> > >
> > > As is every tunnel on the London Underground, except for some of the
> > > older tunnels were cast iron segments or brick linings are used.
> > >
> > > > The more mountainous areas are karst, which does tend to have
> > > > natural
> > > > caves, but doesn't lend itself enormously to tunneling. Serious
> > > > deep
> > > > excavations, like Cheyenne Mountain, are granite or similar hard
> > > > rock.
> > >
> > > You may wish to think again
> > >
> > > London is built on clay, I guess that means you think they couldnt
> > > possibly build the London Underground
> >
> > No, I said _serious_ tunneling. Cheyenne Mountain is a good example of
> > a
> > serious tunneling excavation (and other system) intended to withstand
> > near misses of nuclear weapons, or deep-penetrating PGMs with
> > conventional warheads.
>
> I rather think that the hundreds of miles of tunnels
> that make up the London Underground system are
> really quite serious.
>
> So were the Cabinet war rooms and the underground
> military HQ in London and Northwood.
>
> All built under clay

When were they built? Were nuclear weapons or penetrating PGMs design
consideration?

I certainly agree they are stable under normal conditions, and, for that
matter, the German bombing of WWII. I'm not as convinced that 617
Squadron, using the Tallboy, couldn't have broached them, much less if
more modern weapons were used.
>

> >
> > And won't have much effect on a modern penetrating or high blast
> > weapon.
>
> It wasnt suggested it would, however a 100ft of clay or
> sandstone, especially if properly reinforces is rather
> difficult to penetrate using conventional weapons.

The interim "bunker buster" rigged from old artillery barrels penetrated
over 100 feet of hardened clay (caliche) in the US trials before
deployment. They never did dig it out.
>
> > Cheyenne Mountain isn't only granite, it's granite in a matrix of steel
> > stabilizing bolts. Zhiguli is presumably comparable.
>
> I think the Syrians know about steel and concrete too.

I didn't say steel and concrete, but steel and granite. Cheyenne
Mountain was selected, in part, because it is a mountain, and it was
possible to tunnel in from the side. Even so, there was a significant
amount of construction (and excavated rock and soil) that would have
been visible in overhead imagery. I find it hard to believe that Syria
could have (1) found an appropriate granite mountain and (2) hidden from
satellites the evidence of building a major shelter.

What is plausible is that the Syrians might have improved some of the
karst caves, which would be much more hardened than the sandstone
through which the qanats are built. Improved karst, however, isn't the
same as reinforced granite.

I will grant that you can superharden something of the size of an ICBM
silo with steel and concrete, although some of the techniques need
research. Again, the construction is difficult to hide from
overheads--it is much more distinctive than a truck of mystery materials.
>
> > >
> > > In the middle east the techniques for building extensive
> > > underground tunnels have been know since antiquity.
> > > The network of irrigation tunnels in Iran are known
> > > as the qanat and in Arabia they call them the falaj.
> >
> > Exactly. The qanats are what I'm describing in the Syrian lowlands.
> > They
> > don't and can't go deeply enough to withstand modern bombing.
>
> But tunnels built using modern techniques can and do.

If the Syrians did build such a complex, I suspect we would know about
it. We tracked their attempts to build a subway system, which were
abandoned.

Howard Berkowitz

June 3rd 04, 05:56 PM

In article >,
wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:41:09 -0400, Kevin Brooks >
> wrote:
> >
> > If you think that such facilities can only be built in granite, think
> > again.
> > I'd be very surprised if Mount Weather in Virginia, one of the
> > formerly-secret (along with Raven Rock in Maryland and the congrssional
> > facility at White Hot Springs (IIRC) in West Virginia) emergency
> > relocation
> > sites, was built in anything other than that Karst limestone you
> > ridiculed
> > earlier. Mount Weather and Raven Rock are both tunnel complexes.
>
> Dunno about Mount Weather or the Congressional Continuity of Government
> site located under the Greenbriar resort in Sulphur Springs, West
> Virginia,
> but Raven Rock (Site R) is dug into part of the Catoctin anticline (the
> site is actually in Pennsylvania, just north of the Maryland border.)
>
> The Catoctin anticline is composed of late Precambrian basalt lava flows
> that later metamorphosed into the characteristic Catoctin "greenstone"
> (metabasalt), which is considerably harder than limestone.

And let me make clear I wasn't saying it had to be granite specifically,
but other hard rock. Greenbriar is under a lawn--it was basically just a
fallout shelter.

Kevin Brooks

June 3rd 04, 07:27 PM

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:41:09 -0400, Kevin Brooks >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > If you think that such facilities can only be built in granite, think
> > > again.
> > > I'd be very surprised if Mount Weather in Virginia, one of the
> > > formerly-secret (along with Raven Rock in Maryland and the
congrssional
> > > facility at White Hot Springs (IIRC) in West Virginia) emergency
> > > relocation
> > > sites, was built in anything other than that Karst limestone you
> > > ridiculed
> > > earlier. Mount Weather and Raven Rock are both tunnel complexes.
> >
> > Dunno about Mount Weather or the Congressional Continuity of Government
> > site located under the Greenbriar resort in Sulphur Springs, West
> > Virginia,
> > but Raven Rock (Site R) is dug into part of the Catoctin anticline (the
> > site is actually in Pennsylvania, just north of the Maryland border.)
> >
> > The Catoctin anticline is composed of late Precambrian basalt lava flows
> > that later metamorphosed into the characteristic Catoctin "greenstone"
> > (metabasalt), which is considerably harder than limestone.
>
> And let me make clear I wasn't saying it had to be granite specifically,
> but other hard rock. Greenbriar is under a lawn--it was basically just a
> fallout shelter.

Mount Pony (former Federal Reserve emergency storage site, and reportedly
used to also provide some alternate command space) , just down the road from
where I live, has recently been largely dug up (for some unknown reason),
and I did not see much evidence of largescale rock removal to get the job
done. As far as I can tell from gandering at a geological map, Mount Weather
lays west of the Blue Ridge in what is termed as the "Valley and Ridge"
geology of Virginia--predominantly limestone, and typically Karst (which
might explain the mentions in various Mount Weather sites of supporting
underground "ponds"). And the Greenbriar facility is neither "under the
lawn" (it is under the West Virginia Wing extension built onto the hotel,
and was built while the new wing was being added); nor was it necessarily
"basically just a fallout shelter" --top cover for the entrance tunnel is
listed as being some three feet of concrete topped by a varyingdepth of soil
ranging from 25 feet to a maximum of 100 feet.

Brooks

Keith Willshaw

June 3rd 04, 08:48 PM

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:

> > All built under clay
>
> When were they built? Were nuclear weapons or penetrating PGMs design
> consideration?
>

For the cabinet war rooms no, for Northwood nuclear weapons
were certainly a consideration

> I certainly agree they are stable under normal conditions, and, for that
> matter, the German bombing of WWII. I'm not as convinced that 617
> Squadron, using the Tallboy, couldn't have broached them, much less if
> more modern weapons were used.

Neither am I but thats not the issue. Tunnels arent just
hard to damage they're hard to find, especially in a
closed society

> >
>
> > >
> > > And won't have much effect on a modern penetrating or high blast
> > > weapon.
> >
> > It wasnt suggested it would, however a 100ft of clay or
> > sandstone, especially if properly reinforces is rather
> > difficult to penetrate using conventional weapons.
>
> The interim "bunker buster" rigged from old artillery barrels penetrated
> over 100 feet of hardened clay (caliche) in the US trials before
> deployment. They never did dig it out.

And how many would you need to collapse 10
miles of tunnel ?

> >
> > > Cheyenne Mountain isn't only granite, it's granite in a matrix of
steel
> > > stabilizing bolts. Zhiguli is presumably comparable.
> >
> > I think the Syrians know about steel and concrete too.
>
> I didn't say steel and concrete, but steel and granite. Cheyenne
> Mountain was selected, in part, because it is a mountain, and it was
> possible to tunnel in from the side. Even so, there was a significant
> amount of construction (and excavated rock and soil) that would have
> been visible in overhead imagery. I find it hard to believe that Syria
> could have (1) found an appropriate granite mountain and (2) hidden from
> satellites the evidence of building a major shelter.
>

You are the only one fixated on granite.

You may recall that the only weapons able to
penetrate the concrete U-Boat pens were the
Tallboys and Grandslam weapons used by the
RAF and the former were definitel marginal
against some of the later pens

> What is plausible is that the Syrians might have improved some of the
> karst caves, which would be much more hardened than the sandstone
> through which the qanats are built. Improved karst, however, isn't the
> same as reinforced granite.
>

The Syrians cant re-order the geology of their country but they
can still hide stuff in tunnels

> I will grant that you can superharden something of the size of an ICBM
> silo with steel and concrete, although some of the techniques need
> research. Again, the construction is difficult to hide from
> overheads--it is much more distinctive than a truck of mystery materials.

Difficult to be sure BUT the Serbians managed to hide a lot
of stuff in Kosovo as did the Iraqi's. The UN inspectors
found underground complexes hidden beneath civilian
facilities on numerous occasions

> >
> > > >
> > > > In the middle east the techniques for building extensive
> > > > underground tunnels have been know since antiquity.
> > > > The network of irrigation tunnels in Iran are known
> > > > as the qanat and in Arabia they call them the falaj.
> > >
> > > Exactly. The qanats are what I'm describing in the Syrian lowlands.
> > > They
> > > don't and can't go deeply enough to withstand modern bombing.
> >
> > But tunnels built using modern techniques can and do.
>
> If the Syrians did build such a complex, I suspect we would know about
> it. We tracked their attempts to build a subway system, which were
> abandoned.

Civilian systems are rather easier to track than military ones
but we may well know about it. That doesnt mean they
couldnt build em though. I suspect any such were built more
with the IDF in mind than the USAF

Keith

Howard Berkowitz

June 3rd 04, 09:23 PM

In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > wrote:
>
> > > All built under clay
> >
> > When were they built? Were nuclear weapons or penetrating PGMs design
> > consideration?
> >
>
> For the cabinet war rooms no, for Northwood nuclear weapons
> were certainly a consideration

While I cannot get into specifics, it's no accident that US continuity
of nuclear operations focuses on getting the NCA (and successors)
airborne. No one makes it a secret that Cheyenne Mountain and Site R
would not stand up to a fUSSR ICBM attack, given both yields and
accuracy. I'd assume the same is true of Northwood.

Incidentally, some studies of a superhardened shelter, intended for the
DC area, have been declassified -- IIRC, they are online in the National
Security Archive at George Washington University. The idea was deemed
infeasible for a nuclear war environment.

>
> > I certainly agree they are stable under normal conditions, and, for
> > that
> > matter, the German bombing of WWII. I'm not as convinced that 617
> > Squadron, using the Tallboy, couldn't have broached them, much less if
> > more modern weapons were used.
>
> Neither am I but thats not the issue. Tunnels arent just
> hard to damage they're hard to find, especially in a
> closed society

Agreed. Also note that large tunnel complexes become more vulnerable to
advanced detection systems, such as ground-penetrating radar, thermal
imaging, and probably an assortment of other MASINT methods. Silo-sized
shelters -- sure. Hard to find.
> >
> > > >
> > > > And won't have much effect on a modern penetrating or high blast
> > > > weapon.
> > >
> > > It wasnt suggested it would, however a 100ft of clay or
> > > sandstone, especially if properly reinforces is rather
> > > difficult to penetrate using conventional weapons.
> >
> > The interim "bunker buster" rigged from old artillery barrels
> > penetrated
> > over 100 feet of hardened clay (caliche) in the US trials before
> > deployment. They never did dig it out.
>
> And how many would you need to collapse 10
> miles of tunnel ?

If there's a 10-mile tunnel, it's going to be easier to find. No one
bomb (other than large thermonuclear) is going to take out the system.

But how many exits and ventilation shafts are there? Collapse the
exits, and what's underground is useless.

You may not have seen my earlier post --- substitute "hard rock" for
"granite." For fairly small installations, such as ICBM silos,
high-grade concrete can do -- although the silos themselves are tunneled
into hard rock.
>
> The Syrians cant re-order the geology of their country but they
> can still hide stuff in tunnels

Hide, yes. Protect if found, no.

>
> Civilian systems are rather easier to track than military ones
> but we may well know about it. That doesnt mean they
> couldnt build em though. I suspect any such were built more
> with the IDF in mind than the USAF

Depends on size. At some point, the problem of disposing of the
excavation becomes an issue.

Greg Hennessy

June 3rd 04, 11:15 PM

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:48:53 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>For the cabinet war rooms no, for Northwood nuclear weapons
>were certainly a consideration

One must assume that the other side would have made an awful mess of NW
london just to knock out Northwood.

greg

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

Keith Willshaw

June 3rd 04, 11:49 PM

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:48:53 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >For the cabinet war rooms no, for Northwood nuclear weapons
> >were certainly a consideration
>
> One must assume that the other side would have made an awful mess of NW
> london just to knock out Northwood.
>
>

That assumption was fair I suspect, I never thought
the Soviets would take us off the target list cause
Brent Council declared us a nuclear free zone :(

Keith

Howard Berkowitz

June 4th 04, 12:38 AM

In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

> "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:48:53 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > >For the cabinet war rooms no, for Northwood nuclear weapons
> > >were certainly a consideration
> >
> > One must assume that the other side would have made an awful mess of NW
> > london just to knock out Northwood.
> >
> >
>
> That assumption was fair I suspect, I never thought
> the Soviets would take us off the target list cause
> Brent Council declared us a nuclear free zone :(
>

*sigh* should they, then, have built Northwood in Slough?

Jim Yanik

June 4th 04, 12:53 AM

Howard Berkowitz > wrote in news:hcb-
:

>
> While I cannot get into specifics, it's no accident that US continuity
> of nuclear operations focuses on getting the NCA (and successors)
> airborne. No one makes it a secret that Cheyenne Mountain and Site R
> would not stand up to a fUSSR ICBM attack, given both yields and
> accuracy. I'd assume the same is true of Northwood.

IMO,Cheyenne Mountain would be a VERY tough nut to crack regardless of
megatonnage.
Shock waves may be a different matter.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Howard Berkowitz

June 4th 04, 05:06 AM

In article >, Jim Yanik
> wrote:

> Howard Berkowitz > wrote in news:hcb-
> :
>
>
>
> >
> > While I cannot get into specifics, it's no accident that US continuity
> > of nuclear operations focuses on getting the NCA (and successors)
> > airborne. No one makes it a secret that Cheyenne Mountain and Site R
> > would not stand up to a fUSSR ICBM attack, given both yields and
> > accuracy. I'd assume the same is true of Northwood.
>
> IMO,Cheyenne Mountain would be a VERY tough nut to crack regardless of
> megatonnage.
> Shock waves may be a different matter.

While I can't get into specifics, the Air Force has justified its
continued existence on the basic of existing construction, plus low air
conditioning costs. Again from public statements, look at the CEP and
yields of a regiment of SS-18s.

Dave Eadsforth

June 4th 04, 06:40 AM

In article >, Howard
Berkowitz > writes
>In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>
>
>Depends on size. At some point, the problem of disposing of the
>excavation becomes an issue.

Such activities could be hidden. You could tunnel out into the
countryside from an urban area where there is normal building
development, dig your bunker from within that tunnel, and use that
tunnel to take away the spoil from your deep shelter excavations. Who
counts the trucks leaving a civil development area?

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Dave Eadsforth

June 4th 04, 06:46 AM

In article >, Howard
Berkowitz > writes
>In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>
>> "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:48:53 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >For the cabinet war rooms no, for Northwood nuclear weapons
>> > >were certainly a consideration
>> >
>> > One must assume that the other side would have made an awful mess of NW
>> > london just to knock out Northwood.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> That assumption was fair I suspect, I never thought
>> the Soviets would take us off the target list cause
>> Brent Council declared us a nuclear free zone :(
>>
>
>*sigh* should they, then, have built Northwood in Slough?

I assume you are thinking of:

'Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough,
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow,
Swarm over, Death!'

Post-war, Slough council did invite Betjeman to visit - to witness that
things had been improved. He declined...

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Dave Eadsforth

June 4th 04, 06:47 AM

In article >, Keith Willshaw
> writes
>
>"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > wrote:
>
>
SNIP rocky bits

>You are the only one fixated on granite.
>
>You may recall that the only weapons able to
>penetrate the concrete U-Boat pens were the
>Tallboys and Grandslam weapons used by the
>RAF and the former were definitel marginal
>against some of the later pens
>
We had this discussion last year, I recall archiving your excellent
description of pen construction.

I read elsewhere that some Grandslams were observe to embed themselves
up to 10-12 feet in the pen roof of one site (forget which) before going
bang. The Terrell rocket-propelled bombs provably got through 20 feet
of pen roof, but with a light (500 pound) charge. (Actually an
advantage - the blast trashed the pens contents but left the structures
intact for the mushroom growers...)

Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Greg Hennessy

June 4th 04, 11:05 AM

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 23:49:28 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>> One must assume that the other side would have made an awful mess of NW
>> london just to knock out Northwood.
>>
>>
>
>That assumption was fair I suspect, I never thought
>the Soviets would take us off the target list cause
>Brent Council declared us a nuclear free zone :(

LOL! Dont remind me.

>
>Keith
>

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

Henry J Cobb

June 4th 04, 04:31 PM

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> I rather think that the hundreds of miles of tunnels
> that make up the London Underground system are
> really quite serious.
>
> So were the Cabinet war rooms and the underground
> military HQ in London and Northwood.
>
> All built under clay

The Germans had weapons that could have killed these facilities, if they
had known exactly where they were.

-HJC

Gernot Hassenpflug

June 4th 04, 04:53 PM

>>>>> "Henry" == Henry J Cobb > writes:

Henry> Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> I rather think that the hundreds of miles of tunnels that make
>> up the London Underground system are really quite serious. So
>> were the Cabinet war rooms and the underground military HQ in
>> London and Northwood. All built under clay

Henry> The Germans had weapons that could have killed these
Henry> facilities, if they had known exactly where they were.

Yeah. They could have won the war - if they'd known how. And if
they'd been able to do anything useful with that knowledge. Ahem.

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

Howard Berkowitz

June 4th 04, 05:16 PM

In article >, Dave Eadsforth
> wrote:

> In article >, Howard
> Berkowitz > writes
>
> >*sigh* should they, then, have built Northwood in Slough?
>
> I assume you are thinking of:
>
> 'Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough,
> It isn't fit for humans now,
> There isn't grass to graze a cow,
> Swarm over, Death!'
>

Precisely.

David Nicholls

June 4th 04, 10:02 PM

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200406020904.asp
> > Gen. Richard Myers, in a May 2003 briefing, explained that a nuclear
> > bunker buster could minimize the threat from biological or chemical
> > weapons at an enemy site.
>
> By the time the nuclear bunker buster is fielded, both Iran and North
> Korea will have nuclear armed missiles capable of at least striking
> their neighbors, so who exactly would you use the RNEP on?
>
> You're not going to find all of their launch locations before you strike
> and afterwards they have nothing to lose by launching.
>
> -HJC

I am alone in being concerned that the US is spending substantial resources
to develop war fighting nuclear weapons (not deterence) to use specifically
against non-nuclear states? Is this the modern moral US?

In terms of effectiveness I would ask if they could be used against deep
installations. By this I would consider the deep mines at depths of 400m to
4000m which would be a logical place to store such WMD if one was threatened
by such deep penetrating nuclear weapons.

David Nicholls

Keith Willshaw

June 4th 04, 11:06 PM

"David Nicholls" > wrote in message
...
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
> > http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200406020904.asp
> > > Gen. Richard Myers, in a May 2003 briefing, explained that a nuclear
> > > bunker buster could minimize the threat from biological or chemical
> > > weapons at an enemy site.
> >
> > By the time the nuclear bunker buster is fielded, both Iran and North
> > Korea will have nuclear armed missiles capable of at least striking
> > their neighbors, so who exactly would you use the RNEP on?
> >
> > You're not going to find all of their launch locations before you strike
> > and afterwards they have nothing to lose by launching.
> >
> > -HJC
>
> I am alone in being concerned that the US is spending substantial
resources
> to develop war fighting nuclear weapons (not deterence) to use
specifically
> against non-nuclear states? Is this the modern moral US?
>

Please explain the intrinsic moral difference between destroying deep
bunkers
with an explosion caused by fissioning atoms as compared with
doing so with chemical explosives ?

There may well be practical reasons for the choice of one
versus the other but dead is dead.

Keith

Jim Yanik

June 5th 04, 01:10 AM

"David Nicholls" > wrote in
:

> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
>> http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200406020904.asp
>> > Gen. Richard Myers, in a May 2003 briefing, explained that a
>> > nuclear bunker buster could minimize the threat from biological or
>> > chemical weapons at an enemy site.
>>
>> By the time the nuclear bunker buster is fielded, both Iran and North
>> Korea will have nuclear armed missiles capable of at least striking
>> their neighbors, so who exactly would you use the RNEP on?
>>
>> You're not going to find all of their launch locations before you
>> strike and afterwards they have nothing to lose by launching.
>>
>> -HJC
>
> I am alone in being concerned that the US is spending substantial
> resources to develop war fighting nuclear weapons (not deterence) to
> use specifically against non-nuclear states? Is this the modern moral
> US?
>
> In terms of effectiveness I would ask if they could be used against
> deep installations. By this I would consider the deep mines at depths
> of 400m to 4000m which would be a logical place to store such WMD if
> one was threatened by such deep penetrating nuclear weapons.
>
> David Nicholls
>
>

Any deep mine that had a nuclear explosion nearby deep underground would
have it's shafts collapse,or become inaccessible,just as effective as
destroying the WMD itself. They might even flood.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Dave Eadsforth

June 5th 04, 06:25 AM

In article >, Jim Yanik
> writes
>"David Nicholls" > wrote in
:
>
>> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200406020904.asp
>>> > Gen. Richard Myers, in a May 2003 briefing, explained that a
>>> > nuclear bunker buster could minimize the threat from biological or
>>> > chemical weapons at an enemy site.
>>>
>>> By the time the nuclear bunker buster is fielded, both Iran and North
>>> Korea will have nuclear armed missiles capable of at least striking
>>> their neighbors, so who exactly would you use the RNEP on?
>>>
>>> You're not going to find all of their launch locations before you
>>> strike and afterwards they have nothing to lose by launching.
>>>
>>> -HJC
>>
>> I am alone in being concerned that the US is spending substantial
>> resources to develop war fighting nuclear weapons (not deterence) to
>> use specifically against non-nuclear states? Is this the modern moral
>> US?
>>
>> In terms of effectiveness I would ask if they could be used against
>> deep installations. By this I would consider the deep mines at depths
>> of 400m to 4000m which would be a logical place to store such WMD if
>> one was threatened by such deep penetrating nuclear weapons.
>>
>> David Nicholls
>>
>>
>
>Any deep mine that had a nuclear explosion nearby deep underground would
>have it's shafts collapse,or become inaccessible,just as effective as
>destroying the WMD itself. They might even flood.

At one point, it was feared that an exploding nuke could send a stream
of VERY hot gasses along tunnels, thus spoiling everyone's day.
However, later modelling (and maybe even testing) revealed that an
underground nuclear explosion in an area containing shafts and tunnels
tends to crush them flat, thus sealing them and saving the rest of the
complex further damage. So, the lesson appeared to be; don't build
caverns, stick to tunnels and shafts.

Of course, finding your way out after a strike might have been a
problem...cue for even more SF stories about people trapped underground
for generations...
>
Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Henry J Cobb

June 5th 04, 07:05 AM

David Nicholls wrote:
> I am alone in being concerned that the US is spending substantial resources
> to develop war fighting nuclear weapons (not deterence) to use specifically
> against non-nuclear states? Is this the modern moral US?

The United States has never used nuclear weapons against a nuclear armed
country.

-HJC

Paul F Austin

June 5th 04, 11:48 AM

"Dave Eadsforth" wrote ...
> Jim Yanik wrote
> >Any deep mine that had a nuclear explosion nearby deep underground would
> >have it's shafts collapse,or become inaccessible,just as effective as
> >destroying the WMD itself. They might even flood.
>
> At one point, it was feared that an exploding nuke could send a stream
> of VERY hot gasses along tunnels, thus spoiling everyone's day.
> However, later modelling (and maybe even testing) revealed that an
> underground nuclear explosion in an area containing shafts and tunnels
> tends to crush them flat, thus sealing them and saving the rest of the
> complex further damage. So, the lesson appeared to be; don't build
> caverns, stick to tunnels and shafts.
>
That's interesting. Do you have a cite for that? During the underground test
era, in one test the blast doors failed. During a UGT, explosive-powered
doors located a short distance from the bomb chamber close after the prompt
radiation pulse drops off (a few hundred nanoseconds) and before the blast
wave arrives, to preserve the down-hole equipment. In one test, the doors
failed and the VERY hot gasses (and lots of fission fragments) both melted
and contaminated the equipment in the test galleries quite far back from the
bomb chamber.

I still think that earth penetrating nuclear weapons is the triumph of "Wow,
a NUKE" thinking over the realistic limits of what a nuclear weapon can do.

Dave Eadsforth

June 5th 04, 11:10 PM

In article >, Paul F Austin
> writes
>
>"Dave Eadsforth" wrote ...
>> Jim Yanik wrote
>> >Any deep mine that had a nuclear explosion nearby deep underground would
>> >have it's shafts collapse,or become inaccessible,just as effective as
>> >destroying the WMD itself. They might even flood.
>>
>> At one point, it was feared that an exploding nuke could send a stream
>> of VERY hot gasses along tunnels, thus spoiling everyone's day.
>> However, later modelling (and maybe even testing) revealed that an
>> underground nuclear explosion in an area containing shafts and tunnels
>> tends to crush them flat, thus sealing them and saving the rest of the
>> complex further damage. So, the lesson appeared to be; don't build
>> caverns, stick to tunnels and shafts.
>>
>That's interesting. Do you have a cite for that?

I'm afraid not - it was described in a newspaper article many years ago,

>During the underground test
>era, in one test the blast doors failed. During a UGT, explosive-powered
>doors located a short distance from the bomb chamber close after the prompt
>radiation pulse drops off (a few hundred nanoseconds) and before the blast
>wave arrives, to preserve the down-hole equipment. In one test, the doors
>failed and the VERY hot gasses (and lots of fission fragments) both melted
>and contaminated the equipment in the test galleries quite far back from the
>bomb chamber.

Was that because the blast hit the tunnel head on? If so, I could
imagine the VERY hot gases etc going straight down the tube. However,
if the complex were built of tunnels that zig-zagged sharply, the nuke
would move enough rock to crush tunnels at 90 degrees to the explosion
and any hot stuff entering a tunnel head on to begin with should be
blocked when a section at 90 degrees to it collapsed.
>
>I still think that earth penetrating nuclear weapons is the triumph of "Wow,
>a NUKE" thinking over the realistic limits of what a nuclear weapon can do.
>
Interesting point...
>
Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Paul F Austin

June 6th 04, 03:10 AM

"Dave Eadsforth" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Paul F Austin
> > writes
> >
> >"Dave Eadsforth" wrote ...
> >> Jim Yanik wrote
> >> >Any deep mine that had a nuclear explosion nearby deep underground
would
> >> >have it's shafts collapse,or become inaccessible,just as effective as
> >> >destroying the WMD itself. They might even flood.
> >>
> >> At one point, it was feared that an exploding nuke could send a stream
> >> of VERY hot gasses along tunnels, thus spoiling everyone's day.
> >> However, later modelling (and maybe even testing) revealed that an
> >> underground nuclear explosion in an area containing shafts and tunnels
> >> tends to crush them flat, thus sealing them and saving the rest of the
> >> complex further damage. So, the lesson appeared to be; don't build
> >> caverns, stick to tunnels and shafts.
> >>
> >That's interesting. Do you have a cite for that?
>
> I'm afraid not - it was described in a newspaper article many years ago,
>
> >During the underground test
> >era, in one test the blast doors failed. During a UGT, explosive-powered
> >doors located a short distance from the bomb chamber close after the
prompt
> >radiation pulse drops off (a few hundred nanoseconds) and before the
blast
> >wave arrives, to preserve the down-hole equipment. In one test, the doors
> >failed and the VERY hot gasses (and lots of fission fragments) both
melted
> >and contaminated the equipment in the test galleries quite far back from
the
> >bomb chamber.
>
> Was that because the blast hit the tunnel head on? If so, I could
> imagine the VERY hot gases etc going straight down the tube. However,
> if the complex were built of tunnels that zig-zagged sharply, the nuke
> would move enough rock to crush tunnels at 90 degrees to the explosion
> and any hot stuff entering a tunnel head on to begin with should be
> blocked when a section at 90 degrees to it collapsed.

The test galleries for UGTs were layed out herringbone fashion along a main
tunnel. Each test gallery could "see" the nuclear explosion so that the test
articles could be exposed to both thermal and nuclear (the two blur together
somewhat) radiation. The blast doors were build to withstand the
overpressures that the bomb would generate. In the UGT where they failed, it
was the closing mechanism that failed to operate rather than the doors being
breached.

As I understand it, the argument for building penetrating nuclear weapons is
that the weapon will volatilize any agents (chemical or biological) that are
present before they can leak out.. That seems iffy to me. As far as
"crushing" tunnels, there won't be much crushing going on much outside the
facture zone, which for a full yeild B61 (300KT) is about 900 feet radius.
Any bunker more than a few multiples of that distance away will get a
hellacious shock but if competently designed, should remain intact.

Enthusiasts keep ignoring these unpleasant facts and suppose that
ground-penetrating RADAR or some other MagicTech will give the attackers
x-ray glasses so that they can see more or less where the bunkers really
are. Fat chance. I mentioned up-thread that modern tunneling equipment can
drive a shaft 200 feet a day. With a year to prepare, without superb HUMINT
it's all going to be a mystery to the targeters, even with nukes at their
disposal.

Dave Eadsforth

June 6th 04, 07:32 AM

In article >, Paul F Austin
> writes
>
>"Dave Eadsforth" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, Paul F Austin
>> > writes
>> >
>> >"Dave Eadsforth" wrote ...
>> >> Jim Yanik wrote
>> >> >Any deep mine that had a nuclear explosion nearby deep underground
>would
>> >> >have it's shafts collapse,or become inaccessible,just as effective as
>> >> >destroying the WMD itself. They might even flood.
>> >>
>> >> At one point, it was feared that an exploding nuke could send a stream
>> >> of VERY hot gasses along tunnels, thus spoiling everyone's day.
>> >> However, later modelling (and maybe even testing) revealed that an
>> >> underground nuclear explosion in an area containing shafts and tunnels
>> >> tends to crush them flat, thus sealing them and saving the rest of the
>> >> complex further damage. So, the lesson appeared to be; don't build
>> >> caverns, stick to tunnels and shafts.
>> >>
>> >That's interesting. Do you have a cite for that?
>>
>> I'm afraid not - it was described in a newspaper article many years ago,
>>
>> >During the underground test
>> >era, in one test the blast doors failed. During a UGT, explosive-powered
>> >doors located a short distance from the bomb chamber close after the
>prompt
>> >radiation pulse drops off (a few hundred nanoseconds) and before the
>blast
>> >wave arrives, to preserve the down-hole equipment. In one test, the doors
>> >failed and the VERY hot gasses (and lots of fission fragments) both
>melted
>> >and contaminated the equipment in the test galleries quite far back from
>the
>> >bomb chamber.
>>
>> Was that because the blast hit the tunnel head on? If so, I could
>> imagine the VERY hot gases etc going straight down the tube. However,
>> if the complex were built of tunnels that zig-zagged sharply, the nuke
>> would move enough rock to crush tunnels at 90 degrees to the explosion
>> and any hot stuff entering a tunnel head on to begin with should be
>> blocked when a section at 90 degrees to it collapsed.
>
>The test galleries for UGTs were layed out herringbone fashion along a main
>tunnel. Each test gallery could "see" the nuclear explosion so that the test
>articles could be exposed to both thermal and nuclear (the two blur together
>somewhat) radiation.

So; exposed on purpose. If thin tunnels were zig-zagged like a WWI
trench system with bulkheads between, I guess that might help a bit.

>The blast doors were build to withstand the
>overpressures that the bomb would generate. In the UGT where they failed, it
>was the closing mechanism that failed to operate rather than the doors being
>breached.

Bet that annoyed some designer...
>
>As I understand it, the argument for building penetrating nuclear weapons is
>that the weapon will volatilize any agents (chemical or biological) that are
>present before they can leak out.. That seems iffy to me. As far as
>"crushing" tunnels, there won't be much crushing going on much outside the
>facture zone, which for a full yeild B61 (300KT) is about 900 feet radius.
>Any bunker more than a few multiples of that distance away will get a
>hellacious shock but if competently designed, should remain intact.

Hmm, nuke has to be accurately targeted then - I suppose they might run
to the cost of GPS guidance for this type of bomb...

But the shock of the explosion would cause those bunkers safely beyond
the fracture zone to rock and roll like hell. I read somewhere that the
interior facilities at Cheyenne Mountain were resting on humungous sized
springs - is that the only option for resilience?
>
>Enthusiasts keep ignoring these unpleasant facts and suppose that
>ground-penetrating RADAR or some other MagicTech will give the attackers
>x-ray glasses so that they can see more or less where the bunkers really
>are. Fat chance. I mentioned up-thread that modern tunneling equipment can
>drive a shaft 200 feet a day. With a year to prepare, without superb HUMINT
>it's all going to be a mystery to the targeters, even with nukes at their
>disposal.
>
So, what to we conclude when a country orders a set of tunnelling
equipment, ostensibly to build a metropolitan subway, and then gives up
'because the geology is all wrong' (um, wouldn't that have come out of
the original survey?)? Is the kit sitting in a junkyard - or is it now
underground, doing something else?
>
Cheers,

Dave

--
Dave Eadsforth

Paul F Austin

June 6th 04, 11:20 AM

"Dave Eadsforth" wrote
> Paul F Austin writes
> >
> >"Dave Eadsforth" wrote

> >>
> >> Was that because the blast hit the tunnel head on? If so, I could
> >> imagine the VERY hot gases etc going straight down the tube. However,
> >> if the complex were built of tunnels that zig-zagged sharply, the nuke
> >> would move enough rock to crush tunnels at 90 degrees to the explosion
> >> and any hot stuff entering a tunnel head on to begin with should be
> >> blocked when a section at 90 degrees to it collapsed.
> >
> >The test galleries for UGTs were layed out herringbone fashion along a
main
> >tunnel. Each test gallery could "see" the nuclear explosion so that the
test
> >articles could be exposed to both thermal and nuclear (the two blur
together
> >somewhat) radiation.
>
> So; exposed on purpose. If thin tunnels were zig-zagged like a WWI
> trench system with bulkheads between, I guess that might help a bit.

That's direct nuclear and thermal radiation, more or less direct line of
sight. There's also the fireball, which can expand around corners. I think
that if a nuke is _in_ the bunker with you, that you're in trouble. Blast
doors may contain the effect but life's hard. The problem is to _get_ the
nuke onto the target. Underground targeting is pretty much impossible. There
are some signatures from shallow excavation but they're subject to spoofing
and maskirovka. How many nuclear munitions are you going to be allowed to
use in a hunt n' peck strategy?

>
> >The blast doors were build to withstand the
> >overpressures that the bomb would generate. In the UGT where they failed,
it
> >was the closing mechanism that failed to operate rather than the doors
being
> >breached.
>
> Bet that annoyed some designer...
> >
> >As I understand it, the argument for building penetrating nuclear weapons
is
> >that the weapon will volatilize any agents (chemical or biological) that
are
> >present before they can leak out.. That seems iffy to me. As far as
> >"crushing" tunnels, there won't be much crushing going on much outside
the
> >facture zone, which for a full yeild B61 (300KT) is about 900 feet
radius.
> >Any bunker more than a few multiples of that distance away will get a
> >hellacious shock but if competently designed, should remain intact.
>
> Hmm, nuke has to be accurately targeted then - I suppose they might run
> to the cost of GPS guidance for this type of bomb...

No, it's not so much the accuracy required of the weapons as it is accuracy
in target detection. From Glassstone, "relatively small, heavy, well
designed structures" suffer light damage at 2 1/2 times the apparent crater
radius (2200 feet in this case). This is damage to the bunker itself and not
the contents.

>
> But the shock of the explosion would cause those bunkers safely beyond
> the fracture zone to rock and roll like hell. I read somewhere that the
> interior facilities at Cheyenne Mountain were resting on humungous sized
> springs - is that the only option for resilience?

There will be two zones around a nuclear explosion: the area near the
fracture zone where any bunker will collapse and and area around that where
the contents of the bunker won't survive. The outside that, dust trickles
out of the ceiling, everyone hunches their shoulders and then straightens up
and carries on.

Again, from Glasstone, internal equipment will be destroyed by a 7g shock if
not shock mounted and about 60g if it is. The modelling of shocks on
equipment is complex and outside a USENET discussion.

> >
> >Enthusiasts keep ignoring these unpleasant facts and suppose that
> >ground-penetrating RADAR or some other MagicTech will give the attackers
> >x-ray glasses so that they can see more or less where the bunkers really
> >are. Fat chance. I mentioned up-thread that modern tunneling equipment
can
> >drive a shaft 200 feet a day. With a year to prepare, without superb
HUMINT
> >it's all going to be a mystery to the targeters, even with nukes at their
> >disposal.
> >
> So, what to we conclude when a country orders a set of tunnelling
> equipment, ostensibly to build a metropolitan subway, and then gives up
> 'because the geology is all wrong' (um, wouldn't that have come out of
> the original survey?)? Is the kit sitting in a junkyard - or is it now
> underground, doing something else?

North Korea for instance doesn't even pretend to be building subways.
They've been tunneling for fifty years and the area near the DMZ (and under
it) is honeycombed with tunnels.

This is a hard problem and one that the puissance of nuclear weapons doesn't
solve.