Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl
What does not follow is why the US would even bother to deploy such a weapon, if it did exist, against Iran - one of the most earthquake-beleagured nations in the world. It would be akin to deploying a drought-generator against Libya. What would be the point?
|
Bunker Busting.
the precise enough target coordinate for their hardened subterranean reasearch complexes are still said to be not known. That you know a 20x30 miles huge facility place does not mean you know where the entrance points or the exact position of the critical facilities is inside that zone - and when considering that these are said to have been driven 15, 20, 50 meters deep into the earth or inside mountains, and iron-concrete hardened wall and roof-structures got used to build them, then you see the problem. you can ripple-bomb that 600 sqm with dozens of MOABs, and still have a good chance that the target you HOPE to hit escapes untouched or only lightly damaged. Three years ago it was covered in a long essay in a German magazine, and there weapon experts said that some of the bunkers the Iranians had built could be tough enough that even a
direct hit with the strongest conventionel bomb known at that time possibly would just lightly damage them. The
direct hit gets put even more into relation when you do not know where the coordinates are to acchieve that direct hit. I understand that they would not go public on intel having improved and them now knowing the exact location data for the target compunds, though. But after all the lies and incompetence in the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I do not trust any politician's or military's word if he claims they now know.
This is one of the points that makes the Iranian case such a tough nut to crack. However, with the ability to launch a massive earthquake in or near that compoud, the game would get started new. It would be the ideal weapon for the mission: you could even strike them and destroy their porgram without exposing oyurself as a poltiical target over having launched a war - you could always blame Mother Nature and that the Iranians simply had bad luck to get hit by some earthquakes in a row.
On the other hand, the use of such weapons with unspecific effect areas easily could caus emore civilian casualties than the controlled use of small nukes on
identified key complexes of their weapons program (no balking about assumed "nuking Iranian cities", please, nobody ever mentioned that, me included).
I don'T know if the Haiti earthquake is the result of a wepaons test that got out of control. I would not be surprised if it is (the military is a creative thinker when it comes to imagining new weapons), but I also wouldn'T be surprised if it simply was what it claims to have been: a natural earthquake in one of the tectonically most unstable areas of the world.
Roland Emmerich'S "Das Arche Noah Prinzip" suddenly on my mind...
There it was weather control implemented as a weapon.