Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs againt Iran: Madness

[STEED]

Well that sounds................. :hmm:
Read on -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, 18 March 2006, 5:20 pm
Article: Global Research
Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs againt Iran: This Way Lies Madness

by Stephen M. Osborn

GlobalResearch.ca

The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear “bunker busters” in Iran in a preemptive strike. As a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini, 1956) I can affirm that this is absolute madness. The “bunker buster” is a cute sounding name for a nuclear horror. Air bursts are horrible enough, doing incredible destruction through heat, shock and high initial radiation. The fallout from an air burst is registered around the world. A surface or subsurface burst is even deadlier and more long lasting.

The Castle-Bravo blast at Bikini in 1954 was a fifteen megaton surface blast. It blew a hole over a mile wide and four hundred feet deep in the atoll, completely obliterating the island and vaporizing over thirteen billion cubic feet of coral, rock and water, sending it in a radioactive cloud extending into the stratosphere. The fallout over the atolls downwind was devastating to the people and ecology there. All of that material is rendered extremely radioactive and as it cools it condenses to fall as rain or radioactive “snow” which contaminates everything it touches. The effects are felt worldwide.

Firing der Bush’s bunker busters in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter, will vaporize hundreds of thousands of tons of earth, water and rock and send this radioactive soup downwind to kill and sicken whole populations. Those immediately downwind will die quickly, in hours or days. Those further downwind will take longer. The global incidences of cancers and disease will again rise markedly. The land downwind will remain contaminated and unusable for generations. If there were deep shelters, it has been postulated by the designers that the bunker busters would not penetrate deeply enough to affect them. I imagine that would initiate the attack theory of sending one nuke after another into the same hole. Picture the intensity of the radioactive disaster that would perpetrate on the area.

There are not too many of us left that witnessed the tests, but there are a number of groups that monitor the effects through cancers, birth defects, both physical and mental and monitoring of contamination in the environment. We are still feeling the results of those tests. I have exchanged e-mails with downwinders and with the children of downwinders who have had children with birth defects that had no previous history of such things in their families; who suffer from cancers that are peculiar to nuclear radiation.

Now we are facing the specter of Depleted Uranium, which is turning up in atmospheric filters around the world. Depleted Uranium is a nuclear byproduct of the nuclear industry. It is a low level radioactive material of extreme density. The half life of DU is 4.5 billion years. Workers in DU have to wear full protective equipment and respirators. DU ammunition is extremely hard and dense. It penetrates armor like tissue paper, vaporizing and burning, leaving dust and particles as shrapnel to be ingested or breathed. DU is not what the public thinks of as a radioactive material. It only emits alpha and beta radiation. A piece of paper will stop it. However, when it is in the lungs or elsewhere in the body, it is in contact with living tissue, bombarding that tissue with low level radiation for the rest of your life and beyond. That radiation can lead to cancers, genetic damage and eventual death.

Independent laboratories like Johns Hopkins have studied this and made predictions of the harm it can do. The government says, as it did with Agent Orange, “There is nothing to it, it is all in your head.” Meanwhile, people continue to sicken and die and will for generations.

Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion. It was just a very hot, stubborn fire in nuclear fuel. Chernobyl and a huge surrounding area is uninhabitable for an estimated three to six hundred years. The fallout from Chernobyl contaminated food and livestock around Europe and Scandinavia for a long time, and the radiation is still traceable in the earth and some living things.

I, and many thousands like me, worked for many years to end the nuclear threat. Treaties were drawn up and ratified. The Peaceful Uses of Space treaty which guaranteed that no nation would use space as a platform for making war. That treaty is now derided by the American Military Establishment as naive. We are ready to take full control of the space around earth to provide a high ground for attack on any “threat” to the United States hegemony. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was to keep nuclear weapon technology from spreading around the world. Der Bush has narrowed that down to anyone who could conceivably at some time in the future be a threat to American domination. Our “friends” can build what they want. We’ll even help them. The Arms Reduction Treaty between us and the CCCP. That was a treaty to destroy nuclear weapons and delivery systems on a mutual basis, with observers from each country verifying the destruction. Der Bush and Putin decided to change that to putting the weapons in storage instead of destroying them. Storage means access by black marketeers who can bribe poorly paid security guards and remove weapons and weapon grade material for resale to the highest bidder.

Treaties mean nothing to this government, of course, if they interfere with profits or power. The Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners is ignored, the international conventions against torture are ignored, the tenets of our own Bill of Rights and Constitution guaranteeing privacy and freedom of __expression to its citizens are being canceled our by der Bush and his minions, the United Nations Charter is ignored or derided. The Kyoto Protocols on global warming and other studies are ignored by this administration as they interfere with short term profits.

All of these breaches of humanity are overshadowed, however, by the possibility of our using nuclear weapons. The effects of that will be as earth shattering as global warming and pollution. This can be avoided very simply by not using them, the one thing we cannot count on der Bush doing unless we stop him by absolutely forbidding the use of nuclear weapons. Even better would be to forbid him from conducting so called “preemptive wars” with anybody who disagrees with him.


The link to the above - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0603/S00348.htm

[scandium]

This is old news. Bush has been lusting after these even before his second term while he has systematically, through both terms, been pulling America out of every international arms agreement he could manage to.

Yes its madness. But with a feeble minded dolt like Bush calling the shots what do you expect.

[SUBMAN1]

I still don't understand the big hoopla around nukes. Welcome to the real world people! There are nukes. And yes they are useful in warfare! Whoop de do!

Let me put this perspective straight. Hmm. You want to blow up a nuke plant, no? This nuke plant is below ground, no? This nuke plant will make the destroying nuke (the one to destroy it) dropped onto it, (in radiation output into the surrounding soil) insignificant, no? So what the hell is the problem? Crap! People in this world are all uptight about technology. Yes, you can kill someone with it, but isn't that better than that someone killing you later on with what they produce at this particular site?

It was written that the world is becoming a dumber place as time goes on, and I am beginning to see it. They worry about the 30,000 Japanese the US killed in WWII with a bomb, yet fail to remember the 35,000 Germans we burned alive only a month before.

Everything these days are so political. Friggen drop the nuke and be done with it. We vowed to do this to any hostile country after WWII, and we better damn well follow through with it since we will be the ones nuked if we don't.

Not too long ago, Sandia National Labs did a test that delivered 2 billion degress Kelvin without nukes alone. Let me see, they could theoretically achieve 100% efficiency out of this and make it destroy the world! Our nukes weapon wise is so out of date. We are verging on tech that can destroy our whole planet via Fusion alone! Crap, want to talk Anti Matter? I just hope the US is the first to develope Anti matter bombs. I assume they have one or two already, but still, this is just minor compared with the technology coming down the pipe!

-S

PS. The nano bots are prgrammed to find you and only you! They are coming to kill you! Be paranoid! They will act like a virus and only kill those that they are programmed to kill. Nukes are the least of your problems.

PPS. Another ignorant person:
This is old news. Bush has been lusting after these even before his second term while he has systematically, through both terms, been pulling America out of every international arms agreement he could manage to.

Yes its madness. But with a feeble minded dolt like Bush calling the shots what do you expect.

You better hope that Bush is the person who is in control of these weapons! Unless you don't like your current way of life!

PPPS. Who do I vote for that will spend funding on Particle Accelerators??? They already have my vote!!!

[TankHunter]

Well that sounds................. :hmm:
Read on -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, 18 March 2006, 5:20 pm
Article: Global Research
Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs againt Iran: This Way Lies Madness

by Stephen M. Osborn

GlobalResearch.ca

The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear “bunker busters” in Iran in a preemptive strike. As a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini, 1956) I can affirm that this is absolute madness. The “bunker buster” is a cute sounding name for a nuclear horror. Air bursts are horrible enough, doing incredible destruction through heat, shock and high initial radiation. The fallout from an air burst is registered around the world. A surface or subsurface burst is even deadlier and more long lasting.

The Castle-Bravo blast at Bikini in 1954 was a fifteen megaton surface blast. It blew a hole over a mile wide and four hundred feet deep in the atoll, completely obliterating the island and vaporizing over thirteen billion cubic feet of coral, rock and water, sending it in a radioactive cloud extending into the stratosphere. The fallout over the atolls downwind was devastating to the people and ecology there. All of that material is rendered extremely radioactive and as it cools it condenses to fall as rain or radioactive “snow” which contaminates everything it touches. The effects are felt worldwide.

Firing der Bush’s bunker busters in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter, will vaporize hundreds of thousands of tons of earth, water and rock and send this radioactive soup downwind to kill and sicken whole populations. Those immediately downwind will die quickly, in hours or days. Those further downwind will take longer. The global incidences of cancers and disease will again rise markedly. The land downwind will remain contaminated and unusable for generations. If there were deep shelters, it has been postulated by the designers that the bunker busters would not penetrate deeply enough to affect them. I imagine that would initiate the attack theory of sending one nuke after another into the same hole. Picture the intensity of the radioactive disaster that would perpetrate on the area.

There are not too many of us left that witnessed the tests, but there are a number of groups that monitor the effects through cancers, birth defects, both physical and mental and monitoring of contamination in the environment. We are still feeling the results of those tests. I have exchanged e-mails with downwinders and with the children of downwinders who have had children with birth defects that had no previous history of such things in their families; who suffer from cancers that are peculiar to nuclear radiation.

Now we are facing the specter of Depleted Uranium, which is turning up in atmospheric filters around the world. Depleted Uranium is a nuclear byproduct of the nuclear industry. It is a low level radioactive material of extreme density. The half life of DU is 4.5 billion years. Workers in DU have to wear full protective equipment and respirators. DU ammunition is extremely hard and dense. It penetrates armor like tissue paper, vaporizing and burning, leaving dust and particles as shrapnel to be ingested or breathed. DU is not what the public thinks of as a radioactive material. It only emits alpha and beta radiation. A piece of paper will stop it. However, when it is in the lungs or elsewhere in the body, it is in contact with living tissue, bombarding that tissue with low level radiation for the rest of your life and beyond. That radiation can lead to cancers, genetic damage and eventual death.

Independent laboratories like Johns Hopkins have studied this and made predictions of the harm it can do. The government says, as it did with Agent Orange, “There is nothing to it, it is all in your head.” Meanwhile, people continue to sicken and die and will for generations.

Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion. It was just a very hot, stubborn fire in nuclear fuel. Chernobyl and a huge surrounding area is uninhabitable for an estimated three to six hundred years. The fallout from Chernobyl contaminated food and livestock around Europe and Scandinavia for a long time, and the radiation is still traceable in the earth and some living things.

I, and many thousands like me, worked for many years to end the nuclear threat. Treaties were drawn up and ratified. The Peaceful Uses of Space treaty which guaranteed that no nation would use space as a platform for making war. That treaty is now derided by the American Military Establishment as naive. We are ready to take full control of the space around earth to provide a high ground for attack on any “threat” to the United States hegemony. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was to keep nuclear weapon technology from spreading around the world. Der Bush has narrowed that down to anyone who could conceivably at some time in the future be a threat to American domination. Our “friends” can build what they want. We’ll even help them. The Arms Reduction Treaty between us and the CCCP. That was a treaty to destroy nuclear weapons and delivery systems on a mutual basis, with observers from each country verifying the destruction. Der Bush and Putin decided to change that to putting the weapons in storage instead of destroying them. Storage means access by black marketeers who can bribe poorly paid security guards and remove weapons and weapon grade material for resale to the highest bidder.

Treaties mean nothing to this government, of course, if they interfere with profits or power. The Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners is ignored, the international conventions against torture are ignored, the tenets of our own Bill of Rights and Constitution guaranteeing privacy and freedom of __expression to its citizens are being canceled our by der Bush and his minions, the United Nations Charter is ignored or derided. The Kyoto Protocols on global warming and other studies are ignored by this administration as they interfere with short term profits.

All of these breaches of humanity are overshadowed, however, by the possibility of our using nuclear weapons. The effects of that will be as earth shattering as global warming and pollution. This can be avoided very simply by not using them, the one thing we cannot count on der Bush doing unless we stop him by absolutely forbidding the use of nuclear weapons. Even better would be to forbid him from conducting so called “preemptive wars” with anybody who disagrees with him.


The link to the above - http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0603/S00348.htm

I don’t know how bad these bunker busters would be (but I find it interesting that the author of the article does not go into the size of said weapons), but the comments "der Bush" and "even better would be to forbid him from conducting so called 'preemptive wars' with anybody who disagrees with him" kinda turned me off of what he said. Plus it is from GlobalResearch.ca, which is not the most accurate source available. A better source would be Pravda ;) . Same goes with talking about how bad DU is. The name says it all, DU is depleted, thus the word depleted. The main thing to worry about it is that it is a heavy metal. Same thing with tungsten which is the other major material used for AP ammunition. So I wouldn’t trust this as far as I can throw it.

[SUBMAN1]

Well that sounds................. :hmm:
...

I don’t know how bad these bunker busters would be (but I find it interesting that the author of the article does not go into the size of said weapons), but the comments "der Bush" and "even better would be to forbid him from conducting so called 'preemptive wars' with anybody who disagrees with him" kinda turned me off of what he said. Plus it is from GlobalResearch.ca, which is not the most accurate source available. A better source would be Pravda ;) . Same goes with talking about how bad DU is. The name says it all, DU is depleted, thus the word depleted. The main thing to worry about it is that it is a heavy metal. Same thing with tungsten which is the other major material used for AP ammunition. So I wouldn’t trust this as far as I can throw it.

They are tiny - 1 kiloton or less. Maybe even 700 ton class. Very low yeild, yet very effective in there job of collaspsing the problem area that is impervious to conventional bombing - even impervious to ground penetrating 4k'ers!

Think of it as a 100K pound bomb. Yes, it has a rad output, but probably much less than the output of the sun directing its energy upon the Earth in a day.

-S

PS. You own body has a rad output in a day.

[micky1up]

i think your getttng confused with a bomd designed to penetrait a nuclear bunker and a nuclear bomb its a common fault that people that have no clue about military things when hms spartan docked in southhampton there where some CND protesters with banners saying remember hiroshima clearly not understanding the major difference between an nuclear weapon and a nuclear powerplant

[Oberon]

Using a nuke to destroy a nuke....

Yep, the irony count is going off the scale... :shifty:

[Skybird]

Sooner or later mankind probably will extinguish itself. Reading some of the comments here makes me feel glad about that. Else I would need to loose my trust in that there is a sense and reason in life and evolution.

[scandium]

They are tiny - 1 kiloton or less. Maybe even 700 ton class. Very low yeild, yet very effective in there job of collaspsing the problem area that is impervious to conventional bombing - even impervious to ground penetrating 4k'ers!

Think of it as a 100K pound bomb. Yes, it has a rad output, but probably much less than the output of the sun directing its energy upon the Earth in a day.

-S

PS. You own body has a rad output in a day.

Yeah, no big deal. Should some terrorist get their hands on something of that yield and set it off in your backyard you might change your mind (should you live long enough to be able to) though.

[STEED]

What about the M.O.A.B Mother Of All Bombs, I believe that's a non nuclear bomb and it's the most powerful conventional bomb in the world today?

[tycho102]

The "bunker busters" are similar to the artillery shells that we developed back in the late 50's.

They're only a couple of kilotons, and the really amazing thing is that they are slightly "shaped". The explosion is very slightly directed down toward the ground. I certainly don't know how it's done, although I can imagine with neutron reflectors and some fairly exotic radioactives. It's real purpose is to "tunnel" down to the bunker, so that later conventional airstrikes can actually hit the thing.

I'd imagine the entire place would be clicking-hot, regardless of the "conventionality" of the weapons used.

[TankHunter]

What about the M.O.A.B Mother Of All Bombs, I believe that's a non nuclear bomb and it's the most powerful conventional bomb in the world today?

It is an airburst bomb. It sprays a mist of flammable material before it detonates. This would cause a large amount of overpressure to be created. Thus killing anything around the blast zone. The problem with it is that it is the size of a truck and you need to use a cargo aircraft to drop it.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/afweapons/l/blmoab.htm

[Kapitan]

B52 what about them surely they can deliver them biggest bombers in the world.

[Oberon]

B52 what about them surely they can deliver them biggest bombers in the world.

IIRC that's the bombers they do use to drop MOABs

[TLAM Strike]

B52 what about them surely they can deliver them biggest bombers in the world.

IIRC that's the bombers they do use to drop MOABs I thought they used the C-130 Hercy-Bird :hmm:

[Oberon]

B52 what about them surely they can deliver them biggest bombers in the world.

IIRC that's the bombers they do use to drop MOABs I thought they used the C-130 Hercy-Bird :hmm:

I retract my previous statement... :oops:

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

actually, you were right TLAM... they're dropped from c-130 cargo (spec ops) planes... i dunno if the buff's hold is large enough to accomodate one of em...

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/moab-movie-stills.jpg

http://science.howstuffworks.com/moab1.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-11-us-bomb-test_x.htm


as for using nucs as bunker busters... has anyone stopped to think about the collateral effects that this would cause... i mean the radiation contamination...

it's not the quick sunburn i'm afraid of so much... it's the slow death by radiation poisoning that i'm gonna have a problem with... even a low yield detonation will result in radioactive contamination both of the water table and the above ground environment...

and suppose one of em failed to detonate... you've just delivered the means of your own destrction to the enemy... dirty bomb material at least...

employing nucs as tactical weapons is a bad idea... it's worse than that, it's a stupid idea... besides the fact that it would set an unprecidented precidence, the wind is just gonna blow the fallout back in our faces...

didn't we learn anything from the 50s...

--Mike

[scandium]

Not just the fallout from one being used, but the precedent the use of one would set, where suddenly its ok to employ nukes on a "tactical basis" is what makes it a really stupid idea to me. Not everyone with the capability to build them is going to agree on where the line should be drawn and you inevitably end up with another arms race as the role, and size, of these mininukes expands.

However unlike the traditional nukes possessed and the restraint of MAD that's prevented their being used, the fools building these believe the traditional rules don't apply. This is more of the same insanity from the folks that brought us the doctrine of "pre-emptive war". How ironic that they pre-emptively invaded a disarmed country on the pretext of disarming them, while not only themselves possessing the world's largest inventory of WMD but designing miniature ones that they intend to use "tactically". Small wonder I guess that they quickly changed the premise from disarmament to bringing freedom and democracy - at gunpoint.

[TankHunter]

Not just the fallout from one being used, but the precedent the use of one would set, where suddenly its ok to employ nukes on a "tactical basis" is what makes it a really stupid idea to me. Not everyone with the capability to build them is going to agree on where the line should be drawn and you inevitably end up with another arms race as the role, and size, of these mininukes expands.

However unlike the traditional nukes possessed and the restraint of MAD that's prevented their being used, the fools building these believe the traditional rules don't apply. This is more of the same insanity from the folks that brought us the doctrine of "pre-emptive war". How ironic that they pre-emptively invaded a disarmed country on the pretext of disarming them, while not only themselves possessing the world's largest inventory of WMD but designing miniature ones that they intend to use "tactically". Small wonder I guess that they quickly changed the premise from disarmament to bringing freedom and democracy - at gunpoint.

A. What you are saying is based on an assumption that the website that published this information is accurate, which I feel is not the case. They have published anti-American propaganda before.
B. With pre-emptive warfare, considering that all a state needs to do is send a weapon to a terrorist organization to have said weapon used against an enemy, pre-emptive warfare seems like a good idea. Should I point to Ansar al-Islam as an example and ricin in the UK? Or other links to terrorists?
C. So because we, a democracy that has nuclear weapons, we should not invade a totalitarian state which assists terrorists and likely has WMD. This after losing close to 3,000 civilians in a terrorist attack? What would be a causus belli in your mind?
D. The use of these weapons seems more strategic in nature. In other words, they are aimed (which, if one thinks about it, would be used in the way that I am to describe, assuming they are used at all in a non retaliatory way, or even in a retaliation) at strategic targets. Such as nuclear sites or national command and control facilities. Not at a company of Iranian Basij.

[scandium]

A. What you are saying is based on an assumption that the website that published this information is accurate, which I feel is not the case. They have published anti-American propaganda before.
B. With pre-emptive warfare, considering that all a state needs to do is send a weapon to a terrorist organization to have said weapon used against an enemy, pre-emptive warfare seems like a good idea. Should I point to Ansar al-Islam as an example and ricin in the UK? Or other links to terrorists?
C. So because we, a democracy that has nuclear weapons, we should not invade a totalitarian state which assists terrorists and likely has WMD. This after losing close to 3,000 civilians in a terrorist attack? What would be a causus belli in your mind?
D. The use of these weapons seems more strategic in nature. In other words, they are aimed (which, if one thinks about it, would be used in the way that I am to describe, assuming they are used at all in a non retaliatory way, or even in a retaliation) at strategic targets. Such as nuclear sites or national command and control facilities. Not at a company of Iranian Basij.

A. As I'd said in a previous post, this is old news and my comments weren't based on that or any other single source.

B. I don't see how pre-emptive warfare is useful in combatting terrorism. You can't point to Iraq as a successful use of it against "state sponsored" terrorism as that's always been the weakest link in the many rationalizations given for war with Iraq; further, even if you accept that premise then I'd hardly call the outcome successful.

Against the terrorist cells themselves I don't see how these would be effective at all. Up until Sept 11/01, the worst terrorist attack on domestic soil had been perpetrated by US Citizens (the Oklahoma City federal building bombing) - how would these mininukes or a doctrine of pre-emptive war been an asset if the US had learned of the plot before it was carried out? Likewise, in the days leading up to Sept 11/01, how would mininukes or pre-emptive war have foiled the plot if the US had learned of it (recall these guys were living in the US for months before 9/11)?

As to employing them overseas, or conducting pre-emptive war against states that "harbour" terrorists... I don't see how that would work. Bin Laden, the #1 terrorist we know of, has often been said (by the US Army) to be hiding in the Pakistani mountains yet the US seems in no hurry to invade nuclear armed pakistan.

C. Of the 19 terrorists who attacked the US on Sept 11/01, I don't think any of them were Iraqi. I believe 16 or 17 of them were from Saudi Arabia (as is Bin Laden) but nobody's ever tried to make a case to attack Saudi Arabia. It was quickly established that Bin Laden was in Taliban controlled Afghanistan and that they wouldn't, or couldn't, turn him over to the US. Not being recognized as a legitimate government and harbouring bin Laden the US had no trouble making the case for war (which wasn't pre-emptive), and the Taliban was routed. Case closed... except Bin Laden escapes and a year and a half later the US decides, with him still on the loose, to attack Iraq? How does this achieve, or even further, the goal of capturing/killing the mastermind behind 9/11?

D. Okay if that's their purpose why not simply use cruise missles with conventional warheads, or tactical airstrikes? Its not like the US has any shortage of cruise missles (after all it it lobbed over 100 of them into Iraq during the opening salvo of the war, at almost a million bucks a piece, just to try and kill Saddam Hussein and "decapitate" Iraq). or airpower.

[TLAM Strike]

has often been said (by the US Army) to be hiding in the Pakistani mountains yet the US seems in no hurry to invade nuclear armed pakistan. My friend is in the Air National Guard and he just returned from an airbase being used to hunt terrorists located in Pakistan. ;)

[scandium]

has often been said (by the US Army) to be hiding in the Pakistani mountains yet the US seems in no hurry to invade nuclear armed pakistan. My friend is in the Air National Guard and he just returned from an airbase being used to hunt terrorists located in Pakistan. ;)

Right, with at least the tacit approval of the Pakastani government (for the US to send warplanes into their airspace). A related question is: do you think they'd grant it for the US to use "mininukes" if the US suspected they had found him but that the area was too hardened to penetrate with their conventional weapons?

[tycho102]

A lot of people talk about the MOAB being a fuel-air bomb. I've read a whole bunch of articles that say it's regular a regular GP high-explosive bomb -- rdx, tnt, tritonal, fertilizer, or whatever it is they use these days.

I've never seen one, never worked with one, so I personally don't know. My point is that a FAE isn't remotely effective as a "bunker buster". The blast isn't that directive unless you get it into an enclosed space. It doesn't even really clear out trees very well. It's designed to spread out a shock wave over a large, non-uniform area -- with the intention of causing trauma (burst lungs, eyes, eardrums, internal bleeding, secondary fires and explosions) to animals.

[SUBMAN1]

A lot of people talk about the MOAB being a fuel-air bomb. I've read a whole bunch of articles that say it's regular a regular GP high-explosive bomb -- rdx, tnt, tritonal, fertilizer, or whatever it is they use these days.

I've never seen one, never worked with one, so I personally don't know. My point is that a FAE isn't remotely effective as a "bunker buster". The blast isn't that directive unless you get it into an enclosed space. It doesn't even really clear out trees very well. It's designed to spread out a shock wave over a large, non-uniform area -- with the intention of causing trauma (burst lungs, eyes, eardrums, internal bleeding, secondary fires and explosions) to animals.

FAE's don't work in a greater size than about 2000 lbs. WHomever says this monster is an FAE is wrong. THe reason is - they can't ignite - no oxygen from the explosion after it reaches a certain size.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Using a nuke to destroy a nuke....

Yep, the irony count is going off the scale... :shifty:

You know what they say! Sometimes it takes a fire to fight a fire! :P

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Not just the fallout from one being used, but the precedent the use of one would set, where suddenly its ok to employ nukes on a "tactical basis" is what makes it a really stupid idea to me. Not everyone with the capability to build them is going to agree on where the line should be drawn and you inevitably end up with another arms race as the role, and size, of these mininukes expands.

However unlike the traditional nukes possessed and the restraint of MAD that's prevented their being used, the fools building these believe the traditional rules don't apply. This is more of the same insanity from the folks that brought us the doctrine of "pre-emptive war". How ironic that they pre-emptively invaded a disarmed country on the pretext of disarming them, while not only themselves possessing the world's largest inventory of WMD but designing miniature ones that they intend to use "tactically". Small wonder I guess that they quickly changed the premise from disarmament to bringing freedom and democracy - at gunpoint.

You sound like you are taking the European approach to appeasement over conflict. Go read a couple history books and find out where that gets you.

You are on the tip of things that are much more nasty than nukes. Nukes in general are not a bad thing and seem to have garnered a reputation of the destroyer of everything. They are nothing more than just a bigger bomb. And yes, it may take a nuke to penetrate deep enough to destroy what it is these people are trying to create.

Nukes have come a long way. They are no longer the dirty nasty first gen stuff you saw during the cold war. A tactical nuke could be made with very little rad output and still accomplish the mission described above.

-S

[Gizzmoe]

Nukes have come a long way. They are no longer the dirty nasty first gen stuff you saw during the cold war. A tactical nuke could be made with very little rad output and still accomplish the mission described above.

I´ve read somewhere that the current bunker-buster nuclear bomb itself doesn´t penetrate the ground very deeply, only about 20ft IIRC. It then directs the blast downwards to create a shockwave. Even a very small 1kt bomb would create a radioactive dust cloud of enormous dimensions.

[scandium]

You sound like you are taking the European approach to appeasement over conflict. Go read a couple history books and find out where that gets you.

You are on the tip of things that are much more nasty than nukes. Nukes in general are not a bad thing and seem to have garnered a reputation of the destroyer of everything. They are nothing more than just a bigger bomb. And yes, it may take a nuke to penetrate deep enough to destroy what it is these people are trying to create.

Nukes have come a long way. They are no longer the dirty nasty first gen stuff you saw during the cold war. A tactical nuke could be made with very little rad output and still accomplish the mission described above.

-S

Wow. Where to begin. Let's see, I've read many history books over the years, it being my favourite form of nonfiction (focusing mainly on my ares of greatest interest: WWII, midieval Europe, and ancient Rome). Among this month's reading on the WWII side was "The Theory and Practice of Hell" (which focuses on the Nazi concentration camps) and "Memoirs: 10 Years and 20 Days" (Doenitz account of the Uboat campaign, mainly from the German perspective but with additional light shed on it by material written during his imprisonment), and "Silent Hunters" (6 mini biographies of 6 U-boat Commanders). So now that we have that out of the way:

Maybe I've been asleep so far this decade but if there's any great international conflict brewing that parallels WWII, I've missed it. The closest we've come in my lifetime was the cold war, but last I checked that's over now. Therefore what you're basing this "appeasement " thing on I have no idea, since there is no belligerent modern day Nazi Germany, or anything remotely equivalent, to appease.

Nukes have come exactly nowhere since they day they were developed, as the basic physics (fission) and raw material (uranium to plutonium) remains unchanged and therefore all of the hazards, potential destruction, nuclear winter, fallout - all those issues have not gone away. You can build a bigger one or smaller one and set it to impact however you want, and label it what you want, but in the end they are every bit as dirty and nasty as the only two ever dropped.

The scenario you describe is just too easy a way out. Life isn't that simple, let alone international relations between countries and the fallout (radioactive or political) of using a weapon like this that's viewed by the rational world as abhorent. During WWII nobody foresaw the long term effects (cancers, poisoning of the water table, etc) that the only two bombs dropped would have let alone that the USSR would soon aquire the technology as well and that a long cold war and arms race would follow.

That's the problem with these things: there are too many variables to work out all the "ifs" and you can't turn back the clock if things don't turn out the way the "experts" predicted. And I have more faith in them than I do in the politicians who choose whether, when, where and how many to drop.

[Skybird]

Nukes have come a long way. They are no longer the dirty nasty first gen stuff you saw during the cold war. A tactical nuke could be made with very little rad output and still accomplish the mission described above.

I´ve read somewhere that the current bunker-buster nuclear bomb itself doesn´t penetrate the ground very deeply, only about 20ft IIRC. It then directs the blast downwards to create a shockwave. Even a very small 1kt bomb would create a radioactive dust cloud of enormous dimensions.

It was explained like that in a 45 min docu on TV last summer as well.

[Gizzmoe]

I´ve found the link where I´ve read those things:
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

Some quotes...

"No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout."

"The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area."

"In order to be fully contained, nuclear explosions at the Nevada Test Site must be buried at a depth of 650 feet for a 5 kiloton explosive — 1300 feet for a 100-kiloton explosive.2 Even then, there are many documented cases where carefully sealed shafts ruptured and released radioactivity to the local environment."

"Even a 0.1 KT burst must be buried at a depth of approximately 230 feet to be fully contained."

[TankHunter]

A lot of people talk about the MOAB being a fuel-air bomb. I've read a whole bunch of articles that say it's regular a regular GP high-explosive bomb -- rdx, tnt, tritonal, fertilizer, or whatever it is they use these days.

I've never seen one, never worked with one, so I personally don't know. My point is that a FAE isn't remotely effective as a "bunker buster". The blast isn't that directive unless you get it into an enclosed space. It doesn't even really clear out trees very well. It's designed to spread out a shock wave over a large, non-uniform area -- with the intention of causing trauma (burst lungs, eyes, eardrums, internal bleeding, secondary fires and explosions) to animals.

FAE's don't work in a greater size than about 2000 lbs. WHomever says this monster is an FAE is wrong. THe reason is - they can't ignite - no oxygen from the explosion after it reaches a certain size.

-S

Doesn’t it (MOAB) disperse a flammable liquid before a small explosive detonates which causes the gas cloud to combust? :-?

[Wim Libaers]

A lot of people talk about the MOAB being a fuel-air bomb. I've read a whole bunch of articles that say it's regular a regular GP high-explosive bomb -- rdx, tnt, tritonal, fertilizer, or whatever it is they use these days.

I've never seen one, never worked with one, so I personally don't know. My point is that a FAE isn't remotely effective as a "bunker buster". The blast isn't that directive unless you get it into an enclosed space. It doesn't even really clear out trees very well. It's designed to spread out a shock wave over a large, non-uniform area -- with the intention of causing trauma (burst lungs, eyes, eardrums, internal bleeding, secondary fires and explosions) to animals.

FAE's don't work in a greater size than about 2000 lbs. WHomever says this monster is an FAE is wrong. THe reason is - they can't ignite - no oxygen from the explosion after it reaches a certain size.

-S

Doesn’t it (MOAB) disperse a flammable liquid before a small explosive detonates which causes the gas cloud to combust? :-?

No, it is just a big container filled with conventional explosives. As already mentioned, a FAE has size limitations, because making very large clouds that will support combustion is very difficult (and even the current small weapons can only do this when using fuel with extremely wide explosive concentration limits such as ethylene oxide).

[MadMike]

Ahem... since I worked on "special weapons" for a number of years, I can speak with authority on the subject. :know:

I wouldn't take too much stock on the article written by self proclaimed nuclear experts in the media.
First, every modern strategic nuclear bomb we had in the inventory was a "bunker buster". On the other hand, Special Forces, SEAL's, and Army and USMC atomic demolition squads also trained with a "mini" bunker buster called the SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition)- the so-called backpack nuke.
As for "bunker busting" nukes, we deployed several air dropped bombs in the '50's specifically for the purpose (Mark 8 and Mark 11). Problem is they were gun type and weren't exactly safe from an operational standpoint (they were "armed" with active material just before flight).
There are plans to test a larger bomb than MOAB, it's called MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator). My relatives said the whole freaking neighborhood shook when MOAB went off more than 20 miles away. According to the author of "Jawbreaker", Gary Bernsten, a BLU-82 was dropped on the suspected hideout of bin Laden in Afghanistan (which resulted in the "martydom" of several hundred Al Qaida).
Met several individuals who were involved in the atmospheric test program; several were present at the 18 megaton Castle Bravo shot.

Conventional stuff-

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm

Nuclear Weapon Archive-

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/

Yours, Mike

[kiwi_2005]

Well i reckon the world should be shaking in there seats cause us kiwis have just released our new missile: :arrgh!:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c387/mischazion/humanmissile.jpg


Designed by this fella: :arrgh!: :o

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c387/mischazion/sick.jpg


:arrgh!: :o :rotfl:

[MadMike]

Wait a minute, I worked with those guys... :-? :-j :dead:

Yours, Mike