If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Libya Returns Nuclear Fuel to Russia | Dav1936531 | Military Aviation | 3 | March 17th 04 05:29 PM |
About when did a US/CCCP war become suicidal? | james_anatidae | Military Aviation | 96 | February 29th 04 03:24 PM |
Czechoslovak nuclear weapons? Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 25 | January 17th 04 02:18 PM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements | me | Military Aviation | 146 | January 15th 04 10:13 PM |
Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...) | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | December 7th 03 08:20 PM |