Who do you drop a nuclear bunker buster on?

"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

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

"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 =---

"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

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 he
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/


(Al Dykes) wrote in message ...
In article , Henry J Cobb wrote:
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


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)

"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