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 bunker-busters can't destroy some Iran nuke plants'

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
NOW WHAT !!

If those bunker-busters can't get there, what will ?

Those things weigh 30,000 pounds !

Iran must have done some homework when designing their "bunkers"


U.S. "officials" quoted by the Wall Street Journal say the heaviest US bombs are not powerful enough to destroy some of Iran's more fortified nuclear facilities !!


US "Mass Ordnance Penetrators" fail initial testing, doubtful if they can take out underground, reinforced facilities, according to 'Wall Street Journal' report; Pentagon asks congress to fund upgrade program.

How did they know what to "test" with ?

Now they want more money to continue, of course !



The US' 30,000-pound (13,600 kilo) [color=gold]"Mass Ordnance Penetrator" (MOP) was specifically designed to be able to take out Iranian and North Korean nuclear facilities. According to the report, initial tests indicated that the bomb would be incapable of performing these tasks, either because of the depth of the facilities or their recent reinforcement.


BUT....?????????


In an interview with the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta admitted to the bomb's shortcomings.....


[color=gold]Panetta also said that the MOP was not specifically designed for Iran. "It's not just aimed at Iran. Frankly, it's aimed at any enemy that decides to locate in some kind of impenetrable location.



Conflicting "Opinions ??
[color=gold]"Mass Ordnance Penetrator" (MOP) was specifically designed to be able to take out Iranian and North Korean nuclear facilities.
THEN...
[color=gold]Panetta also said that the MOP was not specifically designed for Iran.




By JPOST.COM STAFF01/28/2012 05:57
Bunker Busters Problems




Regarding potential alternatives to the MOP, the Journal quoted a US official as saying that "The Massive Ordnance Penetrators are by no means the only capability at our disposal to deal with potential nuclear threats in Iran." Iranian nuclear facilities have been attacked through sophisticated computer viruses as well as bombs, and a number of Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed.

Another senior official said that the Pentagon could make up for the MOPs' shortcomings by dropping them along with other guided bombs on bunkers' entry and exit points. "There is a virtue to deepness but you still need to get in and out," he said.




How Do They Even Know What a Nuke Plant is Fortified With ?








edit on Jan-28-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)


edit on Jan-28-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   
some could be in mountains and hard terrain. they could be 50 ft underground covered in hard granite.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
The Earth is usually a very good layer of defense. And as to how they know what to test I think that the CIA and Mossad probably have something to do with that knowledge.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I will proudly serve my Gov't and clear those bunkers as a Aide-de-Camp to SoS Clinton.

During the flight to Iran, feed me beer, seafood and Mexican.

Those places will be cleared out in no time.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Youre hired!

I think there has been this problem for quite a while actually......They have discussed this in other news before......
the method they spoke about was to drop the MOP and follow it up with a low yield nuke down the hole.
There is no other way to do it.
The Fordo cascade is supposed to be over 60 feet underground in a mountain.
Entombing a bunch of Iranians deep nderground by bombing the entrances and exits may stop things for a while, but it will be a great incentive for the iranians to return the favour somehow.
Remember they supposedly have secret agents all over the world with orders to get busy if a war starts



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Well the Fordo complex is in a mountain. It's like if you were trying to take out NORAD... even with nukes, good luck.

U.S. bombs not strong enough to destroy Iran's nuclear program, report says

One unnamed officials said Pentagon analysts estimated that currently held conventional bombs would not be effective against Iran's enrichment plant in Fordo, adding that a tactical nuclear would be the only option if Washington sought to destroy the facility.

"Once things go into the mountain, then really you have to have something that takes the mountain off," the official told the Wall Street Journal.

Even a tactical nuke wouldn't be enough probably. It would take a big one or several.

I can't find how big the mountain near Fordo is, but apparently there's at least 250ft of rock above the bunker.

Maybe all this is a ploy to ``either it's use nukes or invasion``... what will it be?
edit on 28-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I am not surprised in least by this latest report. They have had years to fortify these locations, and it appears to have been done quite well. If the bunker busters don't work? Then the next viable alternative would be small yield tactical nukes. As some have said, if some of most sensitive locations are embedded in mountains? Then it is going to take a heck of a lot more than ordinance to penetrate them. Moreover, is Israel or the US willing to cross that red line?

My guess is the only viable alternative is to lay siege on these locations with ground troops, air sport, artillery, and other siege techniques until the enemy decides to give up. Then i suppose teams of ordinance specialists can go inside and destroy them from within. Only after removing any radioactive materials to prevent contamination to the environment after an explosion. That postulation could be a costly and messy affair. Again it is only speculation, but what other viable alternatives are there? I reckon only a good old fashioned siege would suffice? Not a cake walk as everyone has been led to believe, and it looks like Iran has been making every preparation necessary in the event of airstrikes. I suppose back to the drawing board for war planners?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Explanation: S&F!

Pure propaganda!

Here is why ...

B61 Nuclear Bomb [wiki]






Image of a B-61 thermonuclear weapon. In the back it is assembled, in the middle it is divided into its major subcomponents, in the front it is almost completely disassembled. The warhead is contained in the bullet-shaped silver canister (see Image:W80_nuclear_warhead.jpg for a different, but similarly shaped, warhead casing).



The B61 nuclear bomb is the primary thermonuclear weapon in the U.S. Enduring Stockpile following the end of the Cold War. It is an intermediate yield strategic and tactical nuclear weapon featuring a two-stage radiation implosion design.

The B61 is a variable yield bomb (0.3 to 340 kiloton yield in various versions and settings) designed for carriage by high-speed aircraft. It has a streamlined casing capable of withstanding supersonic flight speeds. The weapon is 11 ft 8 in (3.58 m) long, with a diameter of about 13 in (33 cm). Basic weight is about 700 lb (320 kg), although the weights of individual weapons may vary depending on version and fuze/retardation configuration.



Total production of all versions was approximately 3,155, of which approximately 1,925 remain in service as of 2002, and some 1,265 are considered to be operational. The warhead has changed little over the years, although early versions have been upgraded to improve the safety features.

Nine versions of the B61 have been produced. Each shares the same "physics package", with different yield options.

The newest variant is the B61 Mod 11, deployed in 1997, which is a ground-penetrating bunker buster.

The B61 unguided bomb should not be confused with the MGM-1 Matador cruise missile, which originally was developed under the bomber designation B-61.

When the B61 was still classified, aircrew were not allowed to use the term "B61". Instead, it was referred to as a "shape", "silver bullet", or even "external delivery".


Nuclear Bunker Buster [wiki]


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 significant fallout. Warhead yield and weapon design have changed periodically throughout the history of the design of such weapons. An underground explosion releases a larger fraction of its energy into the ground, compared to an explosion at or above the surface which releases most of its energy into the atmosphere.


Bunker Buster [wiki]


In World War II the British designer Barnes Wallis, already famous for inventing the bouncing-bomb, designed two bombs that would become the conceptual predecessors of modern bunker busters: the five tonne Tallboy and the ten tonne Grand Slam "Earthquake" bombs. The designs were very aerodynamic with a tail which caused them to spin. This allowed them to exceed the speed of sound as they fell from 22,000 ft (6,700 m). They had casings of high grade steel, much stronger than the typical WWII bomb so that they would survive hitting a hardened surface, or penetrate deep into the ground.

Though these bombs might be thought of as 'bunker busters' today, in fact the original 'earthquake' theory was more complex and subtle than simply penetrating a hardened surface. The Earthquake bombs were designed not to strike a target directly, but to impact beside it, penetrate under it, and create a 'camouflet' or large buried cavern at the same time as delivering a shock wave through the target's foundations. The target then collapses into the hole, no matter how hardened it may be. The bombs had strong casings because they needed to travel through rock rather than reinforced concrete, though they could perform equally well against hardened surfaces. In an attack on the U-boat pens at Farge two Grand Slams went through the 15 ft (4.5 m) reinforced concrete hardening — equalling or exceeding the best current penetration specifications.


Personal Disclosure: Continued next post below ...

edit on 28-1-2012 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to reove accidental update bbcode. :shk:




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 



Explanation: Continued from post above ...

And the only bunker worth striking is where the centrifuges are kept!


Nuclear facilities in Iran: Natanz [wiki]


Natanz (33°43′24.43″N 51°43′37.55″E / 33.7234528°N 51.7270972°E / 33.7234528; 51.7270972) Natanz is a hardened Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP) covering 100,000 square meters that is built 8 meters underground and protected by a concrete wall 2.5 meters thick, itself protected by another concrete wall. In 2004, the roof was hardened with reinforced concrete and covered with 22 meters of earth. The complex consists of two 25,000 square meter halls and a number of administrative buildings. This once secret site was one of the two exposed by Alireza Jafarzadeh in August, 2002. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei visited the site on 21 February 2003 and reported that 160 centrifuges were complete and ready for operation, with 1000 more under construction at the site.[19] Under the terms of Iran's safeguards agreement, Iran was under no obligation to report the existence of the site while it was still under construction. There are currently approximately 7,000 centrifuges installed at Natanz, of which 5,000 are producing low enriched uranium.


Since there is going to be a high potential for nuclear fallout even if conventional weapons could do the job [which apparently they can't
:shk:
] then using a nuclear bunker buster to do the same job better is a no brainer!


Personal Disclosure: There is also the benefits of the resulting EMP to be considered as well ...

Electro-Magnetic Pulse [wiki]


The case of a nuclear electromagnetic pulse differs from other kinds of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) in being a complex electromagnetic multi-pulse. The complex multi-pulse is usually described in terms of three components, and these three components have been defined as such by the international standards commission called the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).[16]

The three components of nuclear EMP, as defined by the IEC, are called E1, E2 and E3.


But then again maybe not so much ...

GBPPR Tech Bulletin #9 - Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse (NEMP) Survival [qsl.net]


For a normal low air burst or ground burst detonation, the EMP effects reach no further than the flash burn and blast effects, IE roughly 30 miles for the typical "city buster" bomb. In other words, if it cooks your radio, it'll cook you too.


Office of Radiation Protction (EMP) [doh.wa.gov]


High-altitude nuclear detonations and electromagnetic bombs can generate EMP that has the potential to damage or destroy electronic devices over widespread areas. Electric power systems would also be at risk from surges produced by such weapons. However, the EMP from a kiloton-range surface nuclear explosion would not be expected to produce serious damage outside the radius of severe destruction from blast.


I hope this helps!



edit on 28-1-2012 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to fix spelling.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Well I remember seeing a pentagon document back in 2006...

It was a presentation done to the Pentagon about hitting Iran's nuclear facilities with bunker buster nukes. And it said it was all safe for civilians because the nuke went off underground...

Apparently the Pentagon called BS on that and developed the MOP. Now it seems it won't do the job... so hopefully it's not back to ``Plan A with nukes``.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Russian "bunker buster".





top topics



 
6

log in

join