Who do you drop a nuclear bunker buster on?

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

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.