Who do you drop a nuclear bunker buster on?

"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

"David Nicholls" wrote in message
...
"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?


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

"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.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

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

"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.

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

"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.

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

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