It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why not some large distributing EMP device that harms no one?
some say that Depleted Uranium ordinance is whats behind Gulf War Syndrome ....
Yes use the nuclear device to spread radiation and chemicals in the atmosphere. Very low risk huh?
[The] Air Force would use the B61-11 [nuclear weapon] against Libya's alleged underground chemical weapons plant at Tarhunah
Shuts down all electricity, prevents launches ect. Un no this war with projectiles is wild to me, they are never precise and always kill innocent...
How would it penetrate the ground and not release some sort of emission into the air? And if not the atmosphere then there would definitely be something in the ground. I highly doubt that we have a nuclear device that would just magically only vaporize this underground facility and not break out of that containment. We must know the exact specs of the building?
Bunker-busting nuclear weapons, also known as earth-penetrating weapons (EPW), are a type of nuclear weapon designed to penetrate into soil, rock, or concrete to deliver a nuclear warhead to a target. These weapons would be used to destroy hardened, underground military bunkers buried deep in the ground. In theory, the amount of radioactive nuclear fallout would be reduced from that of a standard, air-burst nuclear detonation because they would have relatively low explosive yield. However because such weapons necessarily come into contact with large amounts of earth-based debris, they may, under certain circumstances, still generate fallout. Warhead yield and weapon design have changed periodically throughout the history of the design of such weapons. In general, these weapons deliver more "useful" destruction because unlike air bursts, the energy yield does not dissipate into the air.