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.

 

Iran's Nuclear Facilities May Be Dug In Too Deep To Hit

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
According to a recent AWST article, Irans nuclear facilites may be beyond the reach of current US bunker busting bombs:



The fact that many of the Iranian targets are underground presents another problem. Analysts at the U.S. CIA have noted since shortly after the 1991 Iraq war, that the sale of earth-boring equipment skyrocketed in the Middle East as countries started putting key facilities underground to protect against U.S. air strikes. U.S. weapons like the GBU-28 can penetrate perhaps 30 ft. of hardened materials or 100 ft. of earth. But Iranian facilities are reportedly buried 100-200 ft. below the surface with alternating layers of earth and cement to absorb the impact of penetrating bombs. Dug In Deep


Even Isreali experts view Iran's nuclear capacity as 'only a matter of time". The designs place sensative facilities under layers of both reinforced concrete as well as packed sand and earth. Similar in theory to the layered armour that protect MBT's Below is overhead imagery of the Nataz fuel enrichment plant. Estimates place the facility under at least 75 feet of packed earth in addition to the reinforced concrete. The GBU-28 can perhaps bore through 30 feet of reinforced concrete or 75 feet of packed earth.









They have also spread out thier facilites having learned from Iraq's experience with putting all your eggs in one basket at Osirak. Both US and Isreal view this as good / bad situation. Good in that one hit may disrupt the whole chain. Bad in that it may be impossible to take it out completely.

The Pentagon is looking at what to do about it: See more details here:
The Pentagons Plan

[edit on 9/12/06 by FredT]




posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
maybe they are for now...
but....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



The MOP or Massive Ordnance Penetrator seen below comes in at 30000 pounds with penatrating capacity and some experts believe that it can penatrate up to 200 feet through earth and concrete


from your own thread there Fred.....



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   
please attack us and you will see the iranian public side with the mullahs then we can have our fun in iraq!.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   


I know, but the MOP is still in development and its likely that it will be years away from fielding. More than enuf time for Iran to accumulate enuf weapons grade material for several bombs.

Also, given the size of the MOP, it will not be able to be carried on any of the stealth platforms ie B-2, F-117 etc. That means C-5, C-17, or C-130. None of which could be deployed over Iran unless thier Air Force and Air defences were destroyed, which would require an extensive campaign to do so.



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
There's a great animation on the bunker buster in Iran's case:

Here



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   
excellent diagram, so they can't really destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities; particularly the most sensitive one-the natanz enrichment facility..best they can do is damage the entrances..



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
What would a 50 megaton two-stage cobalt salted thermonuclear device do to it? Me thinks it wont care how deep its dug in.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
None of this matters. I guaranty you that if/when we decide to take
these places out then it will be done.
Dont ask me how because I dont know, im not in the military but I wouldnt bet against them.
I suppose if it really came down to it, a direct hit from a small tactical nuclear device would do just fine.





posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Do you people honestly think the US will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran, let alone a nuclear one? and have you considered the repercussions if you did?



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I think the US Administration thinks more about the repercussions if they didn't. North Korea developed a nuke and now the USA is forced to negotiate with them, I do not think they wish for the same outcome with Iran.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Mainer
 


But if you cannot take out the target with a near 100% assurance where does that leave you? You are tlking about multiple facilites dug in hard with alternate layers of reinforced concrete and packed earth/sand. Remember they got quite an education on bunker busting from the USAF twice now in Iraq so no doubt they have learned a thing or two.

We are talking about 100+ feet of this sandwich material unless theya re going to use nuclear weps, its going to be a tough nut to crack. Also the spread out nature precludes being able find let alone hit all of them.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
If the US launches a "preemptive" nuclear strike on Iran, it's time for a civil war.

If our country sinks that low, it's time to stop talking to the 28-percenters, and start shooting at them.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


There is no way to justify a nuclear strike period.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
No, it's sick and absurd, but you can bet there are plenty of people who are all for it, including a few in here.

Some people are simply bloodthirsty fools, and unfortunately probably always will be.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Yes, they seem to think loosing a few bunker busting nukes is no big issue, never mind the fallout on our own troops, or allies in the area etc. :shk:



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
Do you people honestly think the US will launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran, let alone a nuclear one? and have you considered the repercussions if you did?


I seriously doubt that the Bloodlusting Anti-Iran Warhawks of this site who proudly display nuclear explosion avatars (as though it is some means of identifying each other on a crowded site full of liberal freedom haters), have thought long and hard about nuclear warfare and its terrible consequences.

Mind you, many of them probably believe that letting off a nuclear weapon is like letting off a firecracker.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by John Percival Hackworth
 


Hey genius, there is a difference between expressing ones opinion on a subject and actually wanting it to happen, its called reality.. Some people just dont have a clue and you are one of them..
You will NOT find a single post anywhere, made by me, where I express an interest in a preemptive nuclear strike.
I just happen to think a nuke explosion looks cool, so I replaced my UFO avatar with a nuke one, big deal.

Now to what I really wanted to say, which is..
If this doesnt happen before Jan 20, 2009 then it will not happen.
I seriously doubt that Billary Clinton will want to start out her term by being the first President since WW2 to use a nuclear device against another country..
Someone just needs to sedate Bush and Cheney until then and we will be ok




[edit on 10/7/2007 by Kr0n0s]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
there is a difference between expressing ones opinion on a subject and actually wanting it to happen, its called reality..


Oh dear, we did touch a nerve there didn't we. Seems you took my post aimed at numerous people and directed it all upon yourself in your mind. Ah well... some people are just touchy I guess.

So anyway, if you do not advocate it, then why do you feel the need to give us a little image of a cartoonish nuclear explosion?

Yes you may be making a point, but the relish with which you make it is so unbelievably obvious, it could easily be taken for an endorsement of such a possible action on your part.


Some people just dont have a clue and you are one of them..


The reality, seeing as that is what we are discussing here, is that there are numerous people on this site who wish for a nuclear strike on Iran. As we are talking about reality here, and as you are SUCH an advocate of reality, surely you will be able to agree to that? And do you further claim that the majority of people on this site who have nuclear explosions in their avatars are anything else than I suggested?

Oh, and you state that I am one of 'them' based on what exactly?


You will NOT find a single post anywhere, made by me, where I express an interest in a preemptive nuclear strike.


Good for you. But my question still stands.


Now to what I really wanted to say, which is..
If this doesnt happen before Jan 20, 2009 then it will not happen.
I seriously doubt that Billary Clinton will want to start out her term by being the first President since WW2 to use a nuclear device against another country..
Someone just needs to sedate Bush and Cheney until then and we will be ok


That would be nice. But how do you sedate them? They are nigh-on untouchable.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Percival Hackworth

That would be nice. But how do you sedate them? They are nigh-on untouchable.


With a high powered tranquilizer rifle and preferably hit them in the bum.

Anyhoo, I think that not being able to hit these facilities is a good thing, at least, if each side doesn't do anything stupid.

Iran knows it can't make enough nuclear weapons to ever compete with the US, so they would be plain idiotic to even try and attack them.

Remember, 'sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me'. As long as they don't actually physically attack anyone, everything's dandy.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Dont think that a nculear strike on Iran is the same as on Hirsohima or something. we arent talking about population centers but underground facilities far from cities. Also, depending on the method and type of bomb used, atmospheric nculear contamination can be greatly avoided to a certain extent.

Yeah the connotation is bad because the uninformed and unintelligent hear the words "nuclear strike" and then they all think about what they see or hear on TV like the rest of the sheeple do without knowing how these things can be done.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join