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.

 

Bush Admin Ends Nuclear Bunker Buster Research

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
The Bush Administration has decided to cancel it's research into Nuclear "Bunker-Busters". This of coarse was the plan for the creation of a nuclear warhead capable of penetrating deeply built bunkers and destroying them entirely. Many in Congress were against such an idea due to it's implications with nuclear proliferation. The decision has instead been made to go with a more conventional approach.
 



news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has abandoned research into a nuclear "bunker-buster" warhead, deciding instead to pursue a similar device using conventional weaponry, a key Republican senator said Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., said funding for the nuclear bunker-buster as part of the Energy Department's fiscal 2006 budget has been dropped at the department's request.

The nuclear bunker-buster had been the focus of intense debate in Congress, with opponents arguing that its development as a tactical nuclear weapon could add to nuclear proliferation.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I for one was never in favor of such a weapon and am glad that such research has been discontinued. The use of nuclear weapons on deeply built bunkers seems like overkill to me and the fact that it would leave radiation to some extent in the ground and around the area seems unneccessary. This is especially true if they are able to create a weapon capable of taking out such bunkers by conventional means. Which does lead one to wonder why they didn't attempt this in the first place?

[edit on 10/29/05 by FredT]




posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I dont believe it has stopped, just moved to the classified region.


It happens alot, lay a smokescreen for potential futur enemies.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   
A nuclear tipped bunker buster would not be any better at penetrating earth than a regular missile is.
As of today at best we can penetrate 30 meters of rock, not enough to even do any damage using a conventional warhead. A nuclear warhead however would send an immense shockwave through the rock after exploding that it would severely damage if not destroy the structure that is buried.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I think its a mistake to stop research on it, think of how handy these could be to eliminate terrorist strongholds?



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   


I think its a mistake to stop research on it, think of how handy these could be to eliminate terrorist strongholds?


Just where are these super sophisticated "terrorist strongholds" that Rumsfeld and apparently you seem to think exist?

Secondly if you start using nuclear weapons in more conventional way such as this you make this more available to all those other countries out there to do the same. Countries without nuclear programs will then pursue them in order to be on par with such a weapon thus contributing to nuclear proliferation.

Nuclear weapons are bad enough, the last thing we need is another excuse to use them.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Am glad to hear this!!



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Obviously there is a strong requirement for a weapon that can take out deep bunkers,especially in the case of Iran and North Korea who have probably put a few of the nuclear facilities underground to avoid prying eyes.
Not sure of what weapons system are in planning that have the capability to reach these facilities...



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
As i have said many many times , why not just drop a ground burst , as its the same thing as these `bunker busters`


at a depth of 100 meters , a small kt range shot will broach the surface anyway and you have a massive amount of fallout over a wide area.

westpoint - i said to you many times other the last year or 2 , that unless you get within 100 meters of the target , the shock wave won`t kill it.

a minuteman silo is proof to a ground burst at 200m - which was the CEP at the time of the best russian warhead - now though its a lot better.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   
“Secondly if you start using nuclear weapons in more conventional way such as this you make this more available to all those other countries out there to do the same. Countries without nuclear programs will then pursue them in order to be on par with such a weapon thus contributing to nuclear proliferation.”

Just like he said.

This bunker busting business has nothing do to with “bunkers”, but with orbit based ICBM silo busters. Orbital nuclear bombardment systems were banned after Soviets actually put them up there. Bush’s attempt to “loophole” his nuclear “bunker buster” will only cause another step in arms race escalation, and I sure as hell don’t want a Russian combat satellite hanging over my head.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I thought there was a treaty banning the deployment of weapons in space... Do you have a source for the Russians deploying an orbital nuclear weapons system ?



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
"As i have said many many times , why not just drop a ground burst , as its the same thing as these `bunker busters` "

Not the same thing at all! The coupling is very much more effective if the explosion is well underground.
New technology, eg the supercavitating penetrator, might improve penetration somewhat, but there are several other approaches which do not rely on brute force.

For example: why worry about something underground? It's only a problem if it tries to get out, so if you can control/collapse the portals, the facility is effectively neutralised.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   

For example: why worry about something underground? It's only a problem if it tries to get out, so if you can control/collapse the portals, the facility is effectively neutralised.


No, if it is a command and control center sealing it in wouldn't do squat. They would still have contact to the outside world via communication links. If they still operate and command their assets and forces sealing them in wouldn't achieve anything.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

For example: why worry about something underground? It's only a problem if it tries to get out, so if you can control/collapse the portals, the facility is effectively neutralised.


No, if it is a command and control center sealing it in wouldn't do squat. They would still have contact to the outside world via communication links. If they still operate and command their assets and forces sealing them in wouldn't achieve anything.


Yet if all entries and exits were collapsed it wouldn't take long to starve the people inside. Or at least suffocate them. Then it's not really that hard to zero in on communication transmissions. You can easily find where they have the antennas hidden and then all you have to do is ground them out and you're done.



posted on Nov, 9 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   
IIRC wasnt there a 25mt version of the SS18 Satan that was designed for taking out C3 installations like Cheyenne Mountain and the ICBM C3 complex's ?



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
FOBS - Fractional Orbital Bombardment System

www.fas.org...


An orbital variant of the Soviet R-36 intercontinental ballistic missile, known in Russia as the R-36O and intended to deliver nuclear warheads from space. The Western designation “FOBS” refers to the fact that although the payloads reached orbit, they were intended to reenter over their targets prior to completing a full circuit of the Earth. Four suborbital FOBS tests were carried out between December 1965 and May 1966. These were followed by more tests through 1971, delivering 5-ton payloads into low Earth orbit. FOBS is a direct ancestor of the modern-day commercial Tsyklon launch vehicle



is that what you mean?



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Dont recall FOBS being banned just the idea of placing weapons in orbit around the planet.Technically as FOBS isnt completing an orbit then i cant see how they would be covered under the Treaty.



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bmdefiant
I thought there was a treaty banning the deployment of weapons in space...?


The Outer Space Treaty under Article IV prohibits the placement of nuclear weapons or WMDs in space. I did not cover or ban the use of convential weapons in space though. So under this treaty something like a orbital laser weapon would be OK.

It did prohibit the testing and the deployment of any kind of weapon on the moon or other celestial bodies though.

1967 outer space treaty



posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley
"As i have said many many times , why not just drop a ground burst , as its the same thing as these `bunker busters` "

Not the same thing at all! The coupling is very much more effective if the explosion is well underground.

Well, I believe what he means is that it is the same thing with current technology and he (as well as I) do not expect that much more penetration as to have better coupling. Even if significantly more penetration is achievable, as for example with your supercavitating penetrator (haven't heard of it yet), it is doubtful you could make the components of your nuke withstand the immense forces involved.



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
'if it is a command and control center sealing it in wouldn't do squat. They would still have contact to the outside world via communication links.'

These can also be dealt with. In fact, there has been some work on EMP devices specifically for dealing with such facilities.
Also, if you were in such a facility, might you not be a little distracted by the thought that you were trapped under tons of rubble with no way out?



posted on Nov, 11 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
'he (as well as I) do not expect that much more penetration as to have better coupling'

Suggest you check the figures on that.
According to what I've seen, a 300 Kt weapon at 3 metres depth is equal to a 6 megaton groundburst.

'it is doubtful you could make the components of your nuke withstand the immense forces involved.'

The reduced forces on the payload are cited as one of specific advantages of the supercavitating penetrator.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join