In article , Jim Yanik
writes
"David Nicholls" wrote in
:

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/...0406020904.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