Who do you drop a nuclear bunker buster on?

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.

"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

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

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.

"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

"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 =---

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" 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

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.

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