It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nuclear Bunker Buster!! HOOAAAA!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
truthout.org...

" Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sent a memo last month to then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham saying next year's budget should include funds to resume study of building an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon designed to destroy hardened underground targets.

An Energy Department official said yesterday that $10.3 million to restart that study is expected to be included in the Bush administration's budget, which is to be released next week.

The study, which had been undertaken at the Los Alamos, Sandia and Livermore national laboratories, was halted late last year after Congress deleted $27.5 million for it from the fiscal 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Bill..."


Um...Can we say "Effective"? Im wondering however if having such a thing is worth it. I mean, we technically arent alowed to use it. I guess its something that you "need" to have and hope never to use. I would thing that they are creating those new Nano-explosive(?) ones now anyways




posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Nuke Bunker busters would ceratinyl be worthwhile, especially since the North Koreans have large undground bases and nuke facilities installed into mountains (ala Doctor Evil).

Not sure about the uproar over using them. Of course, there are radiation concerns, but it'd primarily be used to destroy a particular installation, rather than cause massive civilian destruction. Might be perceived differently than nuking a city.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I'm all for it. If an enemy percieves that you have the capability to destroy their valuable assets without lots of side effects, they will consider you more likely to use them.

That in turn makes them consider their actions much more carefully. Also, if detonated well underground (more than a few stories) the amount of atmospheric radioactive contamination is much less.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I fail to see a need for this. Conventional weapons like the MOAB could probably be modified for this purpose.

We are opening the door for the rest of the world to develop tactical nukes, and just because we would use them on remote installations, wont stop others from launching them at cities from tanks.

We have the most powerful military in the world, do we really need more nuclear capability? I fail to see how it makes us safer if the rest of the world follows our example and starts devoloping low yeild low radiation tactical nukes.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I fail to see a need for this. Conventional weapons like the MOAB could probably be modified for this purpose.


There is a huge difference between a bomb with a yeild of 10 tons that has to be carried by a cargo plane (and hence has very little survivability and penetrating capability) and a bomb with a yeild of 10,000 tons that can be carried by small aircraft (such as a F117).

And here's a newsflash - with the exception of Russia who is bound by a treaty with us, the rest of the world capable of developing tactical nukes already has.

In order to have an effective deterrent it must be credible. Any improvement in effectiveness or usability will make that deterrent even more effective.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
I fail to see how it makes us safer if the rest of the world follows our example and starts devoloping low yeild low radiation tactical nukes.


We have them, they're DU shells. When I first heard about this they were labeled, "Burrowing Nukes". I thought at first it was some Cold War tech that was abandoned, but now that read the actual quote, I definitely understood Bunker-Buster-esque type equipment. In all honesty however, with missle defense shields able to intercept Aerial Delivery systems, wouldn't a subterranean means be more secure. There is one flaw with this though, it would be easily detected with seismic equipment. Anyone think there is any creedence to this idea?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:11 PM
link   
The MOAB could not be adapted for this role. You have any idea how big a MOAB is?!?! There's another thread currently taking place on the same subject so I'm going to say what I said there.

Having a bunker busting nuke is a great idea on many levels. It could be used against rouge terrorist supporting nations like Iran(North Korea already mentioned) to destroy their nuclear production facilities. These weapons are also called low-yield nukes. These weapons are only big enough to destroy the inside of mountains, underground facilities, and hardened nuclear facilities. We don't need to worry about blowing away entire country sides with these things. This leads to another attribute of bunker busting nukes which is because they aren't huge other nations (Iran watch out) might actually think we would use them.

And if anybody is upset about the U.S. breaking laws by devloping new nukes that isn't a problem. The plan is to use smaller nukes that are already laying around and adapting them for this purpose..



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrendelsBacon


We have them, they're DU shells. [...]


DU shells are in no way shape or form nuclear weapons. Depleted Uranium (very pure U-238) is less radioactive than many items that we come into contact with every day (like banannas and granite), and no scientific research has ever shown any ill effects of DU rounds (except for the obvious if you happen to be the target).



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Having a bunker busting nuke is only a good idea if we plan on having to use it. Right now our problem isnt that we cant take out rouge nations, Iraq and Afghanistan fell very quickly.

My problem is if we actually use one, and justify it because its low-yeild low-radiation. what next?

In my opinion we then open the door for say, India and Pakistan to use tactical nukes in border skirmishes, leading to full scale nuclear war in Asia.

America may not realize it but once we do something like that others will follow.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51
and no scientific research has ever shown any ill effects of DU rounds (except for the obvious if you happen to be the target).

This is untrue. Inhalation of the particle are dangerous. Not becuase of radiation, just because its a heavy metal. From what I understand people that go into or very close to, say, a tank that had been hit with DU rounds recently is at risk.

Guess I'd better stop playing hide and seek in knocked out tanks in iraq. Damn.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Having a bunker busting nuke is only a good idea if we plan on having to use it. Right now our problem isnt that we cant take out rouge nations, Iraq and Afghanistan fell very quickly.

North Korea has reinforced nuclear facilities buried inside of mountains. Also, one of Saddam Husseins palaces in baghdad was hit with bunker busters and many other bombs. The underground re-inforced bunker and its suport systems were not destroyed.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51

Originally posted by GrendelsBacon


We have them, they're DU shells. [...]


DU shells are in no way shape or form nuclear weapons. Depleted Uranium (very pure U-238) is less radioactive than many items that we come into contact with every day (like banannas and granite), and no scientific research has ever shown any ill effects of DU rounds (except for the obvious if you happen to be the target).


That part was joke mainly, forgot to put any emoticons, sorry. But what of the DU aerosolizing upon impact, last I heard it becomes very prevalent in the air around the impact site... It may have been debnked, now I have to do some research.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Nuclear bunker-busters are necessary. Shep Smith on Fox News was on television visiting one of Saddam's underground bunkers that was built under a palace that was hit with like 30 missiles and bombs yet the underground bunker was untouched.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Starwars51
and no scientific research has ever shown any ill effects of DU rounds (except for the obvious if you happen to be the target).

This is untrue. Inhalation of the particle are dangerous. Not becuase of radiation, just because its a heavy metal. From what I understand people that go into or very close to, say, a tank that had been hit with DU rounds recently is at risk.

Guess I'd better stop playing hide and seek in knocked out tanks in iraq. Damn.


I guess I should have said "compared to other types of ammunition". Inhaled lead (or other heavy metals used prior to DU becoming common) is not so good for you either....



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
A nuclear bunker buster would cause a massive release of radiation. All the material sucked up in the explosion becomes iradiated, causing a radioctive cloud.
Needless to say if this cloud floated over China, Russian, Japan or S Korea - there would be a major problem for the US.
The new technology of nano energetics looks far more promosing. The MOP ( MAssive Ordnance Penetrator ) filled with nanoenergetic fill would on paper seem very effective and clean.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Nuclear bunker-busters are necessary. Shep Smith on Fox News was on television visiting one of Saddam's underground bunkers that was built under a palace that was hit with like 30 missiles and bombs yet the underground bunker was untouched.



My point exactly djohn. We didnt have to destroy the bunkers, we took over the country without being able to penetrate the bunkers. Those impenatrable bunkers really didnt help Saddam much, and they didn't slow us down one bit.

This is just another example of us telling the world that we can do whatever we want but, they have to follow our rules or be invaded



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

My point exactly djohn. We didnt have to destroy the bunkers, we took over the country without being able to penetrate the bunkers. Those impenatrable bunkers really didnt help Saddam much, and they didn't slow us down one bit.



I'm sure the soldiers who have died because we did not have the capability to quickly and reliable destroy those bunkers do not share your view.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   
You may be right about that Starwars, but would the same soldiers want small nuclear bombs used instead?

Would the dead soldiers be happier if we never went to Iraq?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
A nuclear bunker buster would cause a massive release of radiation. All the material sucked up in the explosion becomes iradiated, causing a radioctive cloud.
Needless to say if this cloud floated over China, Russian, Japan or S Korea - there would be a major problem for the US.
The new technology of nano energetics looks far more promosing. The MOP ( MAssive Ordnance Penetrator ) filled with nanoenergetic fill would on paper seem very effective and clean.


Not true. While a lightly buried weapon does create more fallout, after you penetrate about 200 feet or so (depending on the substance) the amount of radiation released into the atmosphere decreases dramatically. This is why new weapons are needed, current delivery systems are not capable of withstanding the forces needed to tunnel themselves this far.

www.physicstoday.org...



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51
I guess I should have said "compared to other types of ammunition". Inhaled lead (or other heavy metals used prior to DU becoming common) is not so good for you either....

Most assuredly. People get panicky about DU rounds because they think that they're glowing green rods or something.


We didnt have to destroy the bunkers, we took over the country without being able to penetrate the bunkers.

What about when you don't want to invade a country but would rather destroy a facility?

And don't you think its a bad idea to just assume that the enemy will allways be inept?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join