Who do you drop a nuclear bunker buster on?

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.

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

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"

"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

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?

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"

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

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

"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