Who do you drop a nuclear bunker buster on?

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

Henry J Cobb wrote in :

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


Deep-Buried command and control centers,WMD manufacturing/storage
facilities.(bio-chem,not solely nuclear)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

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)





--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Jim Yanik wrote:
Deep-Buried command and control centers,WMD manufacturing/storage
facilities.(bio-chem,not solely nuclear)

How would you know which tunnels to nuke?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...rk-tunnels.htm
Even if the Pentagon were to develop nuclear "bunker-busters" --
relatively small bombs that penetrate the surface before exploding --
the United States would be hard-pressed to use them successfully
without knowing which of the thousands of bunkers scattered throughout
the country were the correct targets.

-HJC

In article , says...
Jim Yanik wrote:
Deep-Buried command and control centers,WMD manufacturing/storage
facilities.(bio-chem,not solely nuclear)

How would you know which tunnels to nuke?

You take a punt.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...rk-tunnels.htm
Even if the Pentagon were to develop nuclear "bunker-busters" --
relatively small bombs that penetrate the surface before exploding --
the United States would be hard-pressed to use them successfully
without knowing which of the thousands of bunkers scattered throughout
the country were the correct targets.

-HJC


--
History records those that write what happened.

Observations of Bernard - No 60

In article , (Al Dykes)
wrote:

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Henry J Cobb wrote in :

Jim Yanik wrote:
Deep-Buried command and control centers,WMD manufacturing/storage
facilities.(bio-chem,not solely nuclear)

How would you know which tunnels to nuke?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...rk-tunnels.htm
Even if the Pentagon were to develop nuclear "bunker-busters" --
relatively small bombs that penetrate the surface before exploding --
the United States would be hard-pressed to use them successfully
without knowing which of the thousands of bunkers scattered throughout
the country were the correct targets.

-HJC

Consider that the deep buried tunnels would be used only for high-value
items like special weapons,and command/control. Not for ordianry military
material.

"thousands of bunkers"??
Not the hard-to-make very deep,in-hard-rock sort,for that quantity.
And high-value targets have a way of revealing themselves by activity and
types of vehicles visiting them.

I'd note also that the global security guy(John Pike) is anti-nuke along
with anti-missile defense.(bias)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Henry J Cobb" wrote
Jim Yanik wrote:
Deep-Buried command and control centers,WMD manufacturing/storage
facilities.(bio-chem,not solely nuclear)

How would you know which tunnels to nuke?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...rk-tunnels.htm
Even if the Pentagon were to develop nuclear "bunker-busters" --
relatively small bombs that penetrate the surface before exploding --
the United States would be hard-pressed to use them successfully
without knowing which of the thousands of bunkers scattered throughout
the country were the correct targets.

More to the point, how do you know_where_the bunker is. A few years ago,
AvWeek had a brief note that Swedish and German companies sold hard-rock
boring equipment that could cut a 20 foot shaft at the rate of 200 feet a
day. It doesn't take many months before for the circle of uncertainty
starting from where the bore hole starts gets beyond the lethal distance of
_any_ bunker buster, nuclear or not.

The cratering radius of a 300KT (B-61) nuclear explosion in rock is about
900 feet. If the bunker is more than 10X that distance (45 days drilling), a
maximum yeild explosion is unlikely to collapse the bunker.

Without very good HUMINT indeed, you aren't going to know the location of
the target with enough precision to kill it.