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

too risky, that's a surgical operation deep in iranian territory, and the iranians have these new russian missiles that will be shooting down some of these planes, meanwhile they will be launching missiles at the bases in iraq where the flights come from, and us carriers have to stay out of the gulf because of anti-ship missile threat, it would take months of largescale warfare before that is even a possibility and by then how much damage has been doen to the us military as a result of this war on top of a messy war..and even if these helicopter commandoes get in (remember what happened last time in the 70s?) they have to get down these shafts down there and then what? it's a huge underground cavern and there supposed to blow things up wth some explosives that brought stapped to there backs? even with air support iranians are gonna be all around them droping mortars and artilary on the site, they might get stuck down there..

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by pkspeaker
....

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

Originally posted by pkspeaker
too risky, that's a surgical operation deep in iranian territory, and the iranians have these new russian missiles that will be shooting down some of these planes, meanwhile they will be launching missiles at the bases in iraq where the flights come from, and us carriers have to stay out of the gulf because of anti-ship missile threat, it would take months of largescale warfare before that is even a possibility and by then how much damage has been doen to the us military as a result of this war on top of a messy war..and even if these helicopter commandoes get in (remember what happened last time in the 70s?) they have to get down these shafts down there and then what? it's a huge underground cavern and there supposed to blow things up wth some explosives that brought stapped to there backs? even with air support iranians are gonna be all around them droping mortars and artilary on the site, they might get stuck down there..

If we actually were at war that would be easier for all we would need to do is dropped a couple of 30kers to seal it up until we can go in at a later date.

reply to post by Operation AJAX


This is my last post on this since my point isn't understood. Find out how hard granite is, then find out how hard cement and compacted earth is. Once you know the difference talk to your Dad and see what he says.

If a less then full scale version of the SSV can penetrate 31 feet of granite, how much would a full size one go through? Would it double the penetration depth? When you find out how weak cement and compacted earth is compared to granite you will understand what i'm getting at.

I'm also not talking about a weapon that the public knows about like you are when you mention the GBU. This is a project that hasn't had any new data released to the public. I wonder why? This can be the ace up the sleave but if you don't see that then I can't help you understand what the US is capable of. Remember, the 31 feet of granite penetration was done back in 1995. 12 years of testing and research will only make it a better weapon.

reply to post by NJ Mooch


No I understood you, you just did not make any sence.

So if you are talking about a project that has not been released to the public then either you are making it up or you may in violation of any agreement you signed before you were made privy to special access / classified material eh?

At any rate its pretty clear YOU did not do any research so I must do it for you eh? or you would have realize that the density of granite is about 2660 kg/m3 give or take

Granite Density

The denisty of concrete is 2400 kg/m3 for the reinforced type
hypertextbook.com...

Not that big of a difference eh? Add into it 100+ feet of packed earth that has a density of 1522 kg/m3 or Sand 1600+

So your notaional weapon will manage to get through all of that packed earth at 1500-1600 kg/m3 plus several layers of reinforced concrete at 2400 kg/m3 and still have enough energy to penatrate the bunker AND detonate :shk: really now, next time do a bit more research eh?

reply to post by Operation AJAX


This project info was public in 1995 and I said there haven't been any new results made public since. No NdA required for open source info.

Since you posted some good info let me ask you this. Do we know how deep the bases really are? Do we know how many layers of each material there are? Do we know what type of cement they used? Did they test the cement they used to see if it meets the specs?

Since you know a civil engineer, and I use to be in civil engineering myself, you know that the cement has to be tested before construction continues. Has this been done?

Do we know what the SSV can really do? Why hasn't any new info been made public? 1 of 3 reasons, it is better then expected, it is still being tested, or it failed.

I would say that the gov't knows how deep these bases really are and they also know if the SSV can do the job. Will the public ever get the real info? Not unless this weapon is used and this info is released.

Why did I post all this info? To let everyone know that there is a possible weapon that can take out deep underground bunkers.

We both are making good points, but we both don't know all the facts so each side has the same amout of ground to stand on.

So the Russian made missles Iran has are better than the ones Syria used to "chase" the Israeli planes out of their airspace while over a 100 miles in last month? LOL

Well if the CIA wasn't so useless internal sabotage would be the best option.
IMO the only reason it would take years to develop the bomb needed to destroy Iran Nuclear sites is to suck the US tax payer dry and to continue the marriage between US politicians and defence contractors.

Anyone else here find it just a tad ironic that people in this thread are advocating the use of nuclear weapons in order to take out Iran's nuclear weapon capabilities?

Like c'mon people wake up!

^ Um....no. Do you understand what is really going on? That nukes can be used as earht penetrators and ground detonators to strike to Iranian facilities that are far away from population centeres versuse Iran getting nukes and exploding them above ground OVER population centers?


Hmmmm...me thinks you arent comparing apples to apples here. You are just looking at things as black and white and not shades of gray. Unfortunatley bro the world dont work like that as much as you would like it to.

reply to post by princeofpeace


Lets change things around for a second. I assure you that your view on this matter would change if the tides were turned.

If Iran was the super power of the world and they suspected that the United States was developing weapons of mass destruction then by your mentality it would be OK for Iran to use nuclear weapons to dig deep and destroy United States Nuclear facilities?

You see the irony to this yet?

Nukes would only be used on areas with little population. But hey did you ever think about how bad the radioactive fallout would be?

Here is a chart that depicts the fallout after China tested a nuke on Dec. 31, 1966. Fallout from a nuclear device detonated from china reached as far as the EASTERN UNITED STATES and the bomb was only 300 kilotons!



I can only imagine how far the fallout from todays nukes which are in the high megatons would reach.

You need to do just one thing for me. Turn off your propaganda machine aka television and do some critical thinking on YOUR OWN for once.

They could just drop a whole bombload of bunkerbusting conventional GPS guided munitions on exactly the same spot... no?

Here is a chart that depicts the fallout after China tested a nuke on Dec. 31, 1966. Fallout from a nuclear device detonated from china reached as far as the EASTERN UNITED STATES and the bomb was only 300 kilotons!

Volcanic ash is like cement in your lungs, yet after a eruption it circles the Earth many times. I'm sory but the fallout from a Nuke is not going to have any adverse effects on anything more than a few hundred kilometres away.

Oh, and newer nukes are cleaner, lighter, and vastly more efficiant than the first Chinese nuke. First nukes are usually the size of Volkswagens.

[edit on 16/10/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter



So by your terms it would be alright for a country with weapons of mass destruction to use weapons of mass destruction to prevent another country from acquiring weapons of mass destruction?

I fail to see such logic.

Not to mention the United States is the only country in history to ever use a nuclear bomb on a populated area so far. Knock on wood.

I never made any terms about whether it's ok to nuke another country, but I did, however, point out, fallout will not have any noticable effect outside the region the bomb was dropped in, especially with newer nukes by well developed Nuclear powers.

Fallout will be minimal.

[edit on 16/10/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

reply to post by CPYKOmega


The nukes that would be used for deep penetrators wouldn't even be anywhere near 300KT much less in the MT range. I'm not necessarily advocating the use of nukes, but lets not throw inaccurate information and hyperbole around.
Most likely it'd be a very low yield weapon perhaps 1KT or less, combined with an explosion deep underground to keep the blast/residue below the surface.

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter

 

So by your terms it would be alright for a country with weapons of mass destruction to use weapons of mass destruction to prevent another country from acquiring weapons of mass destruction?

I fail to see such logic.

Not to mention the United States is the only country in history to ever use a nuclear bomb on a populated area so far. Knock on wood.

The logic is that Iran has demonstrated itself to be irresponisible, and a State sponsor of worldwide terrorism, that has made threats against us and regional neighbors. There is no irony- our use of nuclear weapons saved countless lives. Iran's use(or supplying to terrorists to use on their behalf) wouldn't be quite so humanitarian in nature.

The US dose not need to send anybody in to get the job done if it needed to be done. May be dug in too deep to hit. The moon may have been too far away for man to reach. Iran knows that no matter how far down they place their nuclear facilities if the US wants to hit them then they will be hit.

The bunker buster weapons were designed to go as deep as needed. If they can't hit there targets im sure they will be modified or a new weapon will be created.

If it needs to be done then it will happen.

Styki

Originally posted by BlueRaja

The logic is that Iran has demonstrated itself to be irresponisible, and a State sponsor of worldwide terrorism, that has made threats against us and regional neighbors.

What are you talking about worldwide? The only group you can link Iran to is the Hezbollah, and they're only pissing on Israel's parade. Most of the world at this point of time would consider the US, via the CIA, as a State sponsor of terrorism.

reply to post by Beachcoma


I'd say by the numbers of people wanting to move to the USA vs. Iran(or any other country for that matter) should be a pretty good indicator of what the world opinion of the USA really is. As for the notion of what terrorism is- can you cite some examples of deliberate targeting of civilian targets by the US military, CIA, etc... vs. military/government targets?
Iran HAS sponsored terrorist attacks against the USA, so I think it is in OUR interest to keep nuclear weapons out of their hands.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
I'd say by the numbers of people wanting to move to the USA vs. Iran(or any other country for that matter) should be a pretty good indicator of what the world opinion of the USA really is.

I don't think so. Why compare immigration stats with Iran when trying to gauge worldwide opinion?

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Beachcoma

 

can you cite some examples of deliberate targeting of civilian targets by the US military,

Here you go. Just one recent example of deliberate sniper baiting of innocent Iraqi civilians.

US Sniper Baiting

Myers and Vela's father, Curtis Carnahan of Idaho Falls, Idaho, said in separate interviews that sworn statements and testimony in the cases of two other accused Ranger snipers indicate that the Army has a classified program that encourages snipers to "bait" potential targets and then kill whoever takes the bait.

[edit on 10-17-2007 by CPYKOmega]