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.

 

Atomic Bunker busters

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   
lol, do you even understand what you posted Harlequin ? If so you'd realise that you haev confirmed what I've already posted,




posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Someone help me with this please .... I don't understand why Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not still dangerously radioactive places if the Uranium 238 that I believe was used in the bombs has a half-life of billions of years ??



posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
lol, do you even understand what you posted Harlequin ? If so you'd realise that you haev confirmed what I've already posted,


430 mrem is somewhat more than 1/2 to 1 mrem


moley; its called clean up - like the trinity site , where most of the top surface was scrapped away and dumped elsewhere , they did the same to hiroshima and nagasaki - scrap away the most radioactive part and despose of it elsewhere.

but , at the trinity site , the still have some of the green glass trinitite near by , and that is still very radioactive (hence why its covered)



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   
I dont know if you guys noticed this about the Afganistan, Iraq war....
In the first Iraq war..a few videos showed laser guided bombs going to their targets.
What was noticed by the most observant ..is that in some instances there were two or more bombs traveling down the same laser beam. This is very telling because between the first and second Iraq war...this technology only got better. In Afganistan ..in the mountain regions they were taking these conventional bunker busters and exploding/burning their way through 100 feet of solid granite mountain by three different bombs...a average of 30 feet per bomb..this is quite a accomlishment. I dont think the taliban forces were quite ready for this. Though the tunnels and cave comlexes go way back into the mountains..the technology is there to make accurate hits if they want to.
Atomic bunker busters are nice fantasy..and I am sure they could do it but the drawbacks to using them this way are huge.
There was talk in years past of using nuclear devices as construction tools the main advantage being that the amount of rubble to haul out was greatly used..but as stated in previous posts ..radiation levels were the main concern.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I dont know if you guys noticed this about the Afganistan, Iraq war....
In the first Iraq war..a few videos showed laser guided bombs going to their targets.
What was noticed by the most observant ..is that in some instances there were two or more bombs traveling down the same laser beam. This is very telling because between the first and second Iraq war...this technology only got better. In Afganistan ..in the mountain regions they were taking these conventional bunker busters and exploding/burning their way through 100 feet of solid granite mountain by three different bombs...a average of 30 feet per bomb..this is quite a accomlishment. I dont think the taliban forces were quite ready for this. Though the tunnels and cave comlexes go way back into the mountains..the technology is there to make accurate hits if they want to.


Do you have any links to this ? I have heard nothing of the sort and I am well informed. The level of accuracy would have to be measured in cm to be able to hit the exact spot the last bomb did.
Not to mention that the bombs would have to be spaced by a considerable margin otherwise the preceding blast would damage or destroy the following weapon. Also the bombs would have to be on the same exact trajectory which isn't possible.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Ive seen this in several videos..of the war...two bombs less than a second behind the other...one punching a hole the other going through the hole.
Also there are delay fuses...they dont always go off on contact with a object ..what we call "point detonation. We had this in artillery..155mm towed artillery ..time delayed fuses. This technology has only been refined further...today.
I do not know if this is the technique used in bunker busting or cave demolition but nevertheless I do know that shaped charges on any delivery system are very effecient...

Thanks.
Orangetom



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I understand the capabilities of hard target penetrators very well. Normlly when more than one bomb is dropped on a target it is to ensure a kill the bombs don't hit in exactly the same spot as the odds of that happening are very small. Even bombs riding the same laser will not hit in exactly the same spot. The accuracy of the Paveway III is measured in a few meters which is far outside the parameters which you are talking about.
Even if it were possible to achieve that accuracy the 2nd weapon would be fraticided by the blast of the first.
I think you'll find with a little more research that what you have stated is not the case.

If it were that simple, then the air force wouldn't even bother with the 30,000 lb MOP weapon, after all what would be the use if what you stated was possible.

The British have developed a penetration weapon which uses a shaped charge to blast a narraow canal for a penetrator warhead to follow. As yet I'm unsure if this has been used in anger.

The US has also developed smart hard target fuses which can sense the density of the materail around it allowing it the ability to ' count floors ' so the warhead will burst at just the right level.

PS. For more inforamtion check out the symposiums on the NDIA website.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
you know that is a good point about the huge bunker busters...or Moab bombs..I dont believe they have even used them much other than testing. They must be horribly expensive and restricted to certain delivery systems.
However...if you watch certain videos..you can see this phenomonon I described happening..two bombs through the same hole. The video that comes to mind is of a concrete hanger..in the desert. Two bombs down the same hole. Very fast. I was astonished when I first saw it.
Yes, I understand that it will not go down the exact same trajectory. I dont think that is a factor in this series of events. It is simply close enough for this type of usage. Much closer than was possible before the advent of this technology.
Thanks
Orangetom



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I believe I know the footage you're talking about orange. Howver IMO I believe this is an unwarranted outcome, nothing that they have planned for, as it only happens a small fraction of the time. But I may be wrong.

The GBU-28 wth BLU-113 warhead is an impressive beast. During a sled test in 1991 it penetrated 21 ft of reinforced concrete and still travelled a further 1/2 mile.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moley
Someone help me with this please .... I don't understand why Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not still dangerously radioactive places if the Uranium 238 that I believe was used in the bombs has a half-life of billions of years ??


Natural Uranium contains about 98% Uranium 238 - which has a half life of several billion years. Because of this it's radiation is not that harmful (the longer the half life, the less radiation).

However, U-238 does not work in an atomic bomb, so it had to be seperated out. This is why making an atomic bomb is hard. The U-235 and Plutonium 239 used in the two bombs have half lives in the few thousand years range - but as soon as the bomb detonates all of that is turned into other materials - most of which have half lives measured in hours or days. An atomic bomb works by turning Uranium or Plutonium into something else....



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51
but as soon as the bomb detonates all of that is turned into other materials - most of which have half lives measured in hours or days. An atomic bomb works by turning Uranium or Plutonium into something else....


I don't have a reference book with me, but I'd give it more than hours and days. I think what mattered the most that the blast was mid-air, so relatively little soil was irradiated. The amount of active material was comparatively small and as it just spread out over a large area, the remaining dosage per square foot diminished. What do you think?



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita

I don't have a reference book with me, but I'd give it more than hours and days. I think what mattered the most that the blast was mid-air, so relatively little soil was irradiated. The amount of active material was comparatively small and as it just spread out over a large area, the remaining dosage per square foot diminished. What do you think?


The uranium fission process has literally hundreds of possible byproducts - and yes virtually all have half lives of days or less. Also, not that many atoms will readily capture nuetrons and become radioactive - hydrogen is by far the best. So even though detonation in soil is not as "clean" as in air, it is nowhere near as bad as in water. I would suggest you look at the following pages for reference.

sutekh.nd.rl.ac.uk...
www.uic.com.au...
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

On a side note, I used to work with a scientist who worked on the trinity project. One of his duties was to go to the trinity site a few days after the detonation and remove some pressure sensors (basically spheres that had been crushed) - He is still alive, and must be 85 by now. So are the people he went into ground zero with. He had a signifigant exposure (a few rem), but it most certainly did no permenant damage - this was 5 days after detonation. The early nuclear weapons weren't exactly the cleanest (by this I mean they did not use up all fissile material) either...



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Thanks for that input on that .. I on the other hand dont think it was a fluke. But that is my opinion too. I only base this opinion on the knowlege that this technology has undoubtedly gotten better.
Do they always want to do this ...two or more bombs down the same beam? No I dont think so ...it would depend on the application of course. I would agree with you on the bunker busters...these are huge , powerful weapons with very reinforced but powerful warheads. You would want these carefully down pretty much the same hole and would most likely do so one carefully spaced after another and with careful bomb damage assessment between hits.
As you spoke about the different models..I am aware that they are working on new ones or special applications all the time. Only improving with new technologys. Yes the bunker busters are very impressive...this technology has taken quantum leaps ...foreward ..over olde armour penetrating models of post WW2...huge leaps.
Thanks for your input...
Orangetom



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
The Navy got to some bunkers in Iraq by hitting them repeatedly with Tomahawks, each one clearing space for the next.

Anyone remember an incident where we thought we saw Sadaam and his sons go into a restaurant for a meeting and a B-1B leveled the whole place? It used multiple guided bombs to destroy the building and then penetrate what was believed to be a bunker under it.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
I remember that incident too. I thought it was only one bomb. I could be mistaken on this. What I do recall is that it was one huge hole in that neighborhood. Since the first gulf war...the knowlege on the Saddam Hussen's staff that we would strike his command and leadership must have psychologically put them at a tremendous disadvantage. The way these new weapons have been improved amounts to the psychological terror of Sniping. That is some kind of effect.

During the first gulf war...we hit some kind of command bunker...which turned out to have alot of civilians in it...familys of people in the Iraqi leadership circles. It is my belief we intended to hit that bunker...psychologically so as to send a message that we could change the game and the stakes at will. I believe the Iraqi Leadership got the message quickly as the steam seemed to go out of them...though it was not a long war to begin with ...this is not the angle presented in our news media..they claimed it was a mistake ...so very sorry etc etc.

Thanks ,
Orangetom




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join