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.

 

US giant bunker-buster bomb project rushed since Iran's Qom site discovered

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Unless the Iranian air space can be cleared, and then I think a C-130 can just slide it out the back door.

It would certainly work in southern Lebanon, Gaza, or Syria.

Big boom.




posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foppezao
Just a question. If you're so "convinced" änd outspoken to the outside world you have a peacefull program ,why building them all underground? I dont know western countries building their reactors and centrifuges underground...

karma i quess?


[edit on 27-9-2009 by Foppezao]

Maybe becayse if all the threats they recieved


on topic

This won't happen, if it does happen Afghanistan and Iraq is basically screwed. Iran is in an absolute position, everyone has interests except Israel.

America won't attack, Israel might attack.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Yikes. Breaks through 60 meters of rock before exploding. I can't even fathom how that's possible.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
You and me both!! I mean there is some exotic technology out there, but a bomb penetrating 60M of rock BEFORE it explodes? Wow. To me thats as impressive as splitting atoms!!

I would think this thing would need to be shaped like a needle and weigh a million pounds to be able to go down through 180 feet of rock.


Originally posted by Lazyninja
Yikes. Breaks through 60 meters of rock before exploding. I can't even fathom how that's possible.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
This really is older tech that's just brought up to date.

Mk82's had a steel nosecap that could be put on to allow the bomb to penetrate a few feet into the ground to take out small bunkers. Without the cap, they detonated on the surface.

They also had an extension that could be put on them to let them explode about three feet from the surface (that way, it killed the troops and you could go and collect their boots after!!
)

So, they might have just harden this bomb to allow it to penetrate that 60M to destroy anything underground.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Thats what it so crazy i guess. Its not an exotic design or anything but 180 feet of rock is just...well its just tough to imagine some falling on its own momentum or gravity (and not digging) to reach that depth.

If someone had told me what a bunker buster did without me knowing anything about it, i would have thought it was a bomb that fell and then afterwards some roto-rooter digging device was deployed and buried itself to a certain depth before detonating.



Originally posted by jerico65
This really is older tech that's just brought up to date.

Mk82's had a steel nosecap that could be put on to allow the bomb to penetrate a few feet into the ground to take out small bunkers. Without the cap, they detonated on the surface.

They also had an extension that could be put on them to let them explode about three feet from the surface (that way, it killed the troops and you could go and collect their boots after!!
)

So, they might have just harden this bomb to allow it to penetrate that 60M to destroy anything underground.


[edit on 27-9-2009 by princeofpeace]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazyninja
 


Do you or anybody for that matter really think that this is the real penetration depth? The 'real' depth is probably highly classified only known by those people in the picture plus a few more in Washington.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Just for the sake of argument, suppose one of these huge bunker busters is used on a nuclear facility.

Won't radioactive material be spread?

I've seen the BLU-82's go off, and there is one huge explosion, one strong shock wave, and then there's a nice, beautiful mushroom cloud.

Now who's to discern whether a small nuke was used, which of course spreads radioactivity from the target, or whether the conventional explosive was used, where radioactive material was already present, and THEN spread?

I mean, if you used four or five CONVENTIONAL bunker busters, then you could certainly get away with using small nukes, as no one will really be able to discern the difference.

I know there's a radioactivity signature that is unique to different nationalities, but that can always be denied if it becomes convenient.

Just thinking . . .



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


I think the idea behind this one Doop is that it would be so deep that all the tons of concrete and dirt would collapse and bury the facility and whatever else is down there.

People, Nuclear material etc.


Edit to add:

For best results the process should be repeated at least 5 or 6 times.




[edit on 27-9-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I posted a thread a while back of an article that AWST put out. Basically showed satelite imagery of what amounts to about 140 meters of alternating 10 foot layers of reinforced concrete and packed earth. A penatration of 70 Meters is not going to cut it.

Edit Here it is:


Iran's Nuclear Facilities May Be Dug In Too Deep To Hit
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 9/27/09 by FredT]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Assuming it has driven itself many meters into a fortified structure. It will jel the immediate area, and by that I mean it will turn concrete, rock, metal, and of course men into a jelled powder. There will still be a surface explosion of some significance at that depth, and certainly anything nearby will collapse.

That much explosive that deep will have a significant shockwave, and the more dense the surrounding matrix, the greater the shockwave transfer.

But a small nuke with a power head will do the same thing, but more efficiently, and with a much smaller package.

All I'm saying is that after a handful of conventional bunker busters, who's to know the difference?

Not like there's going to be any immediate survivors.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


You could not hide a nuclear blast. Studies show that it would leave a radioactive plume that could extend for miles into the atmosphere (unlike an underground nuclear explosion) plu local contamination buy both the bomb as well as whatever was at the site being hit.



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


Well if we do hit it and Radioactivity is released from the facility you know for a fact that we will be accused of using a nuke.


[edit on 27-9-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Sep, 27 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


Oh well, you can always say, "we dropped our bunker buster, and it must have triggered whatever they had down in the hole"

That shock wave from a 70 meter deep large explosion will not have to penetrate every layer to "overpressure" some distance from the actual explosive, and I'm sure they've shaped it for maximum explosive direction.

What's a kicker is that if there were an immediate follow-on that exploded very close to the surface, while the bunker buster was penetrating and then exploded, the surface explosion would act like "tamping" and concentrate even more of the explosive downward.

You can increase the effectiveness of an explosive four-fold by proper tamping. Nothing like an explosion microseconds before your main charge goes off to amplify the hell out of it.

Or, you hit it with one, let it explode, then hit the same spot a few more times with follow-on bunker busters, and you'll reach your 170 meters.

Just be so much easier to nuke them.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by dooper]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
Now who's to discern whether a small nuke was used, which of course spreads radioactivity from the target, or whether the conventional explosive was used, where radioactive material was already present, and THEN spread?

I mean, if you used four or five CONVENTIONAL bunker busters, then you could certainly get away with using small nukes, as no one will really be able to discern the difference.

Just thinking . . .


I already thought of this Dooper - We couldn't get away with it.

Even thirty years ago, we couldn't.

If we use a nuclear weapon, the world will know it was us.


*and once that Genie is out of the bottle, it ain't goin' back; not until we lose at least One city in retaliation.

Well, Pick your City Dooper:









The Bush administration has built a new generation of nuclear weapons that we call ‘usable’ nukes, and they have a nuclear ‘posture’ now, which permits the use of nuclear weapons in a non-nuclear environment if the Commander in Chief deems U.S forces to be at significant risk. If we start bombing Iran (I tell you now it’s not going to work).

My concern is that we will use nuclear weapons to break the backbone of Iranian resistance and it may not work, but what it will do is this: It will unleash the nuclear genie. So to all those Americans out there tonight who are saying, you know what, taking on Iran is a good thing… . And if we use nuclear weapons, the genie ain’t going back in the bottle until an American city is taken out by an Islamic weapon in retaliation. So tell me, you want to go to war against Iran, pick your city. Pick your city. Tell me which one you want gone. Seattle? L.A.? Boston? New York? Miami? Pick one! Because at least one’s going. And that’s something we should all think about before marching down this path of insanity.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Not to mention the EMP associated with the nuclear blast. Every piece of electronic equipment in the surrounding area would cease to function afterward. People would then know that nuclear weapons were used.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   
EDIT : to remove inaccurate information.

[edit on 28-9-2009 by UmbraSumus]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   
There seems to be a bit of confusion regarding how a nuclear detonation is detected.

When a nuke is detonated it emits xenon isotopes into the atmosphere.
A dirty bomb, or even a strike on a nuclear facility would not produce xenon isotopes.
These xenon isotopes are sniffed out by the Constant Phoenix WC-135 aircraft which analyzes the particles in the atmosphere.

Natalie~



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
I believe that the MOAB`s to be used on Qom will be bigger than those in the clip.
Thats if there will be any bombing , there will surely be an inspection at the site first .

And it may take a few of them to do the job ....



The MOAB is not the weapon being discussed here. MOAB is an airburst weapon (GBU-43) The Massive Ordinance Penetrator is the GBU-57.



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by dooper
 


I think the idea behind this one Doop is that it would be so deep that all the tons of concrete and dirt would collapse and bury the facility and whatever else is down there.

People, Nuclear material etc.


Edit to add:

For best results the process should be repeated at least 5 or 6 times.




[edit on 27-9-2009 by SLAYER69]



Thats what i was thinking a vacuum bomb (not the moab or foab) but without the 100% fuel combustion and outward explosion.


Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by Foppezao
Just a question. If you're so "convinced" änd outspoken to the outside world you have a peacefull program ,why building them all underground? I dont know western countries building their reactors and centrifuges underground...

karma i quess?


[edit on 27-9-2009 by Foppezao]

Maybe becayse if all the threats they recieved


on topic

This won't happen, if it does happen Afghanistan and Iraq is basically screwed. Iran is in an absolute position, everyone has interests except Israel.

America won't attack, Israel might attack.

If they had given openness about their program from the start (by letting IAEA inspectors in from the start) and by building the facilities on the surface they wont 've got all these threats (and given others their own threats). My 2 cents is that this Qom facility already enriched enough uranium for an uranium 235 bomb, now they have that they let the inspectors in and erased all traces...




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join