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: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Nuclear attacks are bad because of the picture they paint.

The US uses one, no matter how small and every other nation pricks up their ears and thinks,

'Well, they used one and so and so have been getting a bit too big for their boots, why not?'

Then it starts. Everyone will be throwing them around, it's best if none are used in the first place. Or even better, don't go to war! Wouldn't that be good?




posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
All that needs to happen is for scientists to figure out some way to develop a weapon that will render any nearby nuclear device inert.
Of course, im sure that would be abused as well.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
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.


I assume that your ignorant remark about "28-percenters" refers to the more conservative members of the US population. Hopefully, you were only making a very poor attempt at a joke.

As for the Nuclear Facilities in Iran, I believe the US can and will use whatever level of force is necessary to destroy these facilities. If the job can be done with large penetrator type conventional bombs that would be best. If not, there may be some other weapon in the US arsenal that is not yet known to the public. Special Operations forces could also be used to enter and destroy the facilities from the inside out after a massive aerial bombardment campaign to suppress any resistance in the area. If the only sure way to destroy the facilities is nuclear weapons I expect to see them used.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   


If the only sure way to destroy the facilities is nuclear weapons I expect to see them used.


Then expect the war to come home to your doorstep, because the American people will never stand for a nuclear first strike against a weaker country.

And the term "28%er" refers top the subset of the human population first identified in experiments by Stanley Milgram, people who will obey any authority figure reflexively and without question. It has nothing to do with left or right, this same subset of the population has been behind every totalist regime, from that of Hitler, to Stalin, to the DPRK. I'm not sure where the term itself comes from.

Other researchers refer to these people as having a hight degree of Right Wing Authoritarianism, although I think the term is unfair, as history has show us that extreme authoritarians will support totalist regimes both left and right.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Thank you for the explaination of the "28 percent" and the link. I have not read anything about Stanley Milgram but plan to do so. Please accept my apology for misunderstanding your post. And, I really do hope nobody ever uses a nuclear weapon anywhere. My fear is that the "genie" is already "out of the bottle."



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   


Please accept my apology for misunderstanding your post.


It's OK, these are angry times and divisive topics and I should have made myself clearer.

And I agree with you in that I hope nuclear weapons will never be used again.

As for the nuclear Genie, it's been out of the bottle for quite a while now, since 1945. Lots of dangerous people are going to get their hands on them - lots of dangerous people already have


Fact is that anyone with sufficient resources can build a bomb now, there is no mystery about how to do it.

But if we can survive a fifty year intercontinental nuclear standoff with a massive global power that believed it's destiny was to lead a worldwide revolution against Economics 101, we can probably survive even a nut like Ahmadinejad or Kim getting a few low-yield fission bombs.


[edit on 10/8/07 by xmotex]



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   
What does any underground base need to operate?

Air, water, supplies, communications, and a way in and out. Take out any of those and the base is less then mission capable. The US, or any other country, doesn't have to totally destroy the base, just disable it. The idea of being burried alive isn't something that I would like to worry about.

If you are wondering about a weapon that can possibly take out these bases even if they are 200 feet underground, then check this out:


www.globalsecurity.org...

SSV builds on the very successful USAF/Phillips Laboratory Missile Technology Demonstration-1 mission, which demonstrated the tightly coupled GPS navigation accuracy and successful penetration of weather granite at the White Sands missile range, New Mexico. In this August 1995 test, a simulated subscale Earth penetrating warhead was precisely delivered on target at extremely high velocity, resulting in a successful penetration of 31 feet of granite. Much higher penetration depths are possible with full-scale penetrators and higher impact velocities, which the current system is capable of delivering.


This was done back in 1995. I can't find the other links that I read a few months ago. There are also unclassified papers that were done by military officers talking about ways to take these bases out. Conventional weapons are but one option, the others are just as deadly and some are invisible.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by NJ Mooch
 


You are talking about 31 feet. As the pictures at the top alude to we are talking about 100's of feet with layers of concrete and packed earth. 31 feet is not going to cut it. It may go far but its doubtfull that it would penatrate.

Also yes a raid could knock out power and or water et al. But unless you are going to keep up a constant bombing campaign, they can be fixed.

Also, you cannot get them all and if you fail to do so the whole exersize is a failure



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   
I'm with the guy that's ready to kill the 28%rs


the diagram clearly illustrates that there is no way these nuclear bunker busters will work, there is no such weapon that lands, and then drills, a bigger weapon will just make even bigger radioactive poisoning, guaranteeing an eventual nuclear strike on an American city through whatever means..using a nuclear weapon on Iran is much more likly to lead to a nuclear attack on America then Iran simply having nuclear weapons.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mainer
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.


Well, if you look at it the other way, North Koreas population is now safe from US aggression. Iran deserves the same.

Otherwise we get this situation with US attacking weaker countries as it wants.

You guys seem to have forgotten that Iran havent done anything, yet you are talking about how to best attack it...

I hope the retaliation against the US becomes very strong if they attack Iran, really showing them that they cant keep attacking countries as they wish. It seems to be the only way to get the message through, since US dont like diplomacy.

Maybe take out a city... which one would you like? New York?


[edit on 9-10-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   
another issue of concern is what if Iran already has not only a nuclear weapon but also ICBMs it is certainly not out of the realm of possibilities, remember you only need a small sputnik type rocket and you can put a few kg warhead on that..sputnik was 1957..50 years ago and Iran has been playing around with big rockets for some time now..we know they want to keep everything a secret so the western european countries and Russia and China don't freak out and start sanctionng them too much..if the us did this insane action and it turn out they already got a nuke icbm..then you would have an instant retaliatory strike on a US military base like maybe n.carolina..or possibly a nuke on diego garcia or guam..

i can't beleive anyone in the us military or govt is seriously considering such madness..it's all just a bunch of trash talking ultra-conservatives trying to prove they are more extreme than the next guy.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Guys, dont think for 1 second that the US does not possess a way to take out these bunkers. Thats just wishful thinking, your looking for anyway to thwart ol USA. You can say what you want about our methods of policing attempts, but when it comes to blow for blow, damage capabilities, the US is on a whole other playing field cpmpared to the rest of the world. The sad thing is, if or when we do attack, the world will more than likely say we used a tactical nuke anyways, because the conventional bombs that will be used will be so massive, people will not know the difference.

I pray that it doesnt come to that though, but Iran isnt likely to back down now, they have talked too much crap for that to happen. And I can promise the US isnt just going to say "oh well we tried" and let it go. If they dont start to cooperate with the UN 100%, the US or Israel will take out the bunkers and most of the Iranian military as well in 1 fell swoop.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Wiz4769
 


Congratulations!

You just won todays "I drank the Kool Aid and think that life is a video game!" award.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Operation AJAX
 


Just to make sure that you and everyone else who reads this understands what I was trying to say with my post.

Granite is one fo the hardest minerals on the planet. It can range up to 70% hardness of a diamond. I hope you understand what I just posted.

With that in mind, what does compacted earth and cement compare to a mineral like this? Not much. So if a test weapon was used that penetrated 31 feet of granite, what would a full scale penetrator at higher velocities do?

I think it will penetrate more then 200 feet of compacted earth and cement since those are nowhere near as hard as granite. Failure to understand what is presented gives you a false idea. Please do some research before telling me that it won't be able to penetrate a base covered in compacted earth and cement if a small scale version can penetrate 31 feet of granite. And don't forget, this isn't a nuke.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I have a few questions.

Why does it have to go directly through the concrete? Would it be possible to go in at an angle or to the edge of the bunker so the missile would just travel through a couple hundred feet of sand and explode to destroy the facilities from the side or underneath, or is the facility encased in hundreds of feet of concrete and packed earth.

Or if we do have bunker busters that could travel through 30 feet of concrete and these missiles are supposed to be quite accurate, would it to any good to just target multiple missiles in the same location?

Someone also mentioned a 30K pound penetrator that could do it, but the problem is a stealth jet could not carry it. What about a rocket like used on ICBMs?



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I like these American supramists who keep insisting there is a way for an air dropped weapon to dig thru thousands of feet of hardened bunker, even though all common sense and the scientific analysis that was posted on this thread clearly indicates otherwise..because they think that the US posses some kind of secret weapon that no-one knows about; don't you think they would have publisized that by now, all US defense projects that ae anywhere near completion get out, and there would be no reason to keep this a secret..The iranian nuke sites are dug to deep period..remeber a nuclear weapon is more like a giant napalm than a giant TNT..it's a hot flash, the destruction caused by it is due to the massive amounts of heat and air deing diplaced by the vaporized fireball..it is always going to blast upward into the atmosphere when dropped by a plane

"damage capabilities, the US is on a whole other playing field cpmpared to the rest of the world."

I don't know what the f your talking about, obviously Russia and China can wipe out all of the USA many times over..or do you thnk that the US has some 'secret weaopn' again


and if Iran produces as little as 12 or 20 icbm's and buries them in deep silos..than they will have already reached parity..

and no it shouldn't be new york it should be one of those 'red' states like texas or the carolinas..thats where most of the neo-con retard element is.




Originally posted by Wiz4769
Guys, dont think for 1 second that the US does not possess a way to take out these bunkers. Thats just wishful thinking, your looking for anyway to thwart ol USA. You can say what you want about our methods of policing attempts, but when it comes to blow for blow, damage capabilities, the US is on a whole other playing field cpmpared to the rest of the world. The sad thing is, if or when we do attack, the world will more than likely say we used a tactical nuke anyways, because the conventional bombs that will be used will be so massive, people will not know the difference.

I pray that it doesnt come to that though, but Iran isnt likely to back down now, they have talked too much crap for that to happen. And I can promise the US isnt just going to say "oh well we tried" and let it go. If they dont start to cooperate with the UN 100%, the US or Israel will take out the bunkers and most of the Iranian military as well in 1 fell swoop.


[edit on 9-10-2007 by pkspeaker]



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
What would a 50 megaton two-stage cobalt salted thermonuclear device do to it? Me thinks it wont care how deep its dug in.


50 megaton hmmm I think that might take two bottles of Tritium gas to get that much...



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by pkspeaker
I like these American supramists who keep insisting there is a way for an air dropped weapon to dig thru thousands of feet of hardened bunker, even though all common sense and the scientific analysis that was posted on this thread clearly indicates otherwise..because they think that



Alien technology dude...Don't you read ATS!

Why not just secure the area and bring in a team to penetrate it while the great US Air Force kills anything that moves within a mile of the place? The US also goes after the doors and with a foot accuracy they send missiles knockin one by one and once the doors are open then big brother comes on down just enough to create the biggest firecracker you ever seen as it is wrapped with 20 or 30 yards of reinforced concrete



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by aye aye
Why does it have to go directly through the concrete? Would it be possible to go in at an angle or to the edge of the bunker so the missile would just travel through a couple hundred feet of sand and explode to destroy the facilities from the side or underneath, or is the facility encased in hundreds of feet of concrete and packed earth.


I asked my dad who is a civil enginner and well versed in mine and underground structure engineering (Not a bunker expert but....). He indicated the canopy or concrete structure / packed earth would be bigger than the structure it was protecting. So you avoid the canopy come at an angle you may not get close enuf to do sig. damage. You would still get a shock effect much like an earthquake but Iran is an active fault zone and structures take this into account.

The other issue is one of penatration. coming at an angle would require the warhead to go through more material than straight down. Kind of like why they slope armor on a tank.

The other issue with an angle approach is getting the warhead to bite in and tunnel. You run the risk of it expending a great deal of kinetic energy doing so thus reducing its ability to penatrate (It could also bounce off if the angle is too exreme



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
I hope you understand what I just posted.


Oh but I did and I see where you are coming from did you happen to read the OP's quoted article? Perhaps not as you would have seen this tidbit:



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.


Please understand what it says: The GBU-28 can penatrate 30 ft of hardened material OR 100 feet of earth. The facilities in Iran have 100-200 feet of BOTH hardened material AND packed earth


Please do some research


yes pehaps some is in order but perhaps you would like to do some yourself eh?


At anyrate, the current bad boy in the US inventory for bunker busting the GB-28 can.....



A sled test on 26 February proved that the bomb could penetrate over 20 feet of concrete, while an earlier flight test had demonstrated the bomb's ability to penetrate more than 100 feet of earth. The first two operational bombs were delivered to the theater on 27 February.
www.fas.org...



Thats one or the other. We are talking about 100-200 feet of alternating layers of stuff here. Why do you think they are so keen to go nuclear with it? :shk: maybe you should do some research eh? And not from that Clancy novel you have been reading



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join