Who do you drop a nuclear bunker buster on?

"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

"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

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 20:25:32 -0400, "Paul F Austin"
wrote:


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.

Still, even if the bunker survived, how exactly would the occupants
exit, if the entrance hole (or holes) no longer exist?


Take Care,
James Lerch
http://lerch.no-ip.com/atm (My telescope construction, Testing, and Coating site)

Press on: nothing in the world can take the place of perseverance.
Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.
Calvin Coolidge

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)

"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 =---

"James Lerch" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 20:25:32 -0400, "Paul F Austin"
wrote:


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.

Still, even if the bunker survived, how exactly would the occupants
exit, if the entrance hole (or holes) no longer exist?

That's a decent point although connecting to other exits e.g. railway
tunnels or basements of existing buildings. isn't impossible.

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:41:09 -0400, Kevin Brooks wrote:

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.

Dunno about Mount Weather or the Congressional Continuity of Government
site located under the Greenbriar resort in Sulphur Springs, West Virginia,
but Raven Rock (Site R) is dug into part of the Catoctin anticline (the
site is actually in Pennsylvania, just north of the Maryland border.)

The Catoctin anticline is composed of late Precambrian basalt lava flows
that later metamorphosed into the characteristic Catoctin "greenstone"
(metabasalt), which is considerably harder than limestone.


ljd

In article , "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

"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

When were they built? Were nuclear weapons or penetrating PGMs design
consideration?

I certainly agree they are stable under normal conditions, and, for that
matter, the German bombing of WWII. I'm not as convinced that 617
Squadron, using the Tallboy, couldn't have broached them, much less if
more modern weapons were used.



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.

The interim "bunker buster" rigged from old artillery barrels penetrated
over 100 feet of hardened clay (caliche) in the US trials before
deployment. They never did dig it out.

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.

I didn't say steel and concrete, but steel and granite. Cheyenne
Mountain was selected, in part, because it is a mountain, and it was
possible to tunnel in from the side. Even so, there was a significant
amount of construction (and excavated rock and soil) that would have
been visible in overhead imagery. I find it hard to believe that Syria
could have (1) found an appropriate granite mountain and (2) hidden from
satellites the evidence of building a major shelter.

What is plausible is that the Syrians might have improved some of the
karst caves, which would be much more hardened than the sandstone
through which the qanats are built. Improved karst, however, isn't the
same as reinforced granite.

I will grant that you can superharden something of the size of an ICBM
silo with steel and concrete, although some of the techniques need
research. Again, the construction is difficult to hide from
overheads--it is much more distinctive than a truck of mystery materials.


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.

If the Syrians did build such a complex, I suspect we would know about
it. We tracked their attempts to build a subway system, which were
abandoned.

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:41:09 -0400, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

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.

Dunno about Mount Weather or the Congressional Continuity of Government
site located under the Greenbriar resort in Sulphur Springs, West
Virginia,
but Raven Rock (Site R) is dug into part of the Catoctin anticline (the
site is actually in Pennsylvania, just north of the Maryland border.)

The Catoctin anticline is composed of late Precambrian basalt lava flows
that later metamorphosed into the characteristic Catoctin "greenstone"
(metabasalt), which is considerably harder than limestone.

And let me make clear I wasn't saying it had to be granite specifically,
but other hard rock. Greenbriar is under a lawn--it was basically just a
fallout shelter.

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:41:09 -0400, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

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.

Dunno about Mount Weather or the Congressional Continuity of Government
site located under the Greenbriar resort in Sulphur Springs, West
Virginia,
but Raven Rock (Site R) is dug into part of the Catoctin anticline (the
site is actually in Pennsylvania, just north of the Maryland border.)

The Catoctin anticline is composed of late Precambrian basalt lava flows
that later metamorphosed into the characteristic Catoctin "greenstone"
(metabasalt), which is considerably harder than limestone.

And let me make clear I wasn't saying it had to be granite specifically,
but other hard rock. Greenbriar is under a lawn--it was basically just a
fallout shelter.

Mount Pony (former Federal Reserve emergency storage site, and reportedly
used to also provide some alternate command space) , just down the road from
where I live, has recently been largely dug up (for some unknown reason),
and I did not see much evidence of largescale rock removal to get the job
done. As far as I can tell from gandering at a geological map, Mount Weather
lays west of the Blue Ridge in what is termed as the "Valley and Ridge"
geology of Virginia--predominantly limestone, and typically Karst (which
might explain the mentions in various Mount Weather sites of supporting
underground "ponds"). And the Greenbriar facility is neither "under the
lawn" (it is under the West Virginia Wing extension built onto the hotel,
and was built while the new wing was being added); nor was it necessarily
"basically just a fallout shelter" --top cover for the entrance tunnel is
listed as being some three feet of concrete topped by a varyingdepth of soil
ranging from 25 feet to a maximum of 100 feet.

Brooks