Author Topic: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (Read 1411 times)

Toad · « **Reply #30 on:** July 02, 2005, 01:12:29 PM »

I can't see a scenario where NK nukes are exploding over Japan and NK troops are parking tanks around Pusan again where we don't.

But it's all imagination and idle speculation.

Yeager · « **Reply #31 on:** July 02, 2005, 01:14:38 PM »

well nash, looking at the very limited response to my statement, I was wrong about the lessor types reference. Your response being the only exception.

Ive seen your picture too and I will not insult you based on your physical attributes. Your rhetoric here is ammo enough.

Heres my smiley for you

Nash · « **Reply #32 on:** July 02, 2005, 01:26:34 PM »

From one lesser type to another:

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #33 on:** July 02, 2005, 03:57:34 PM »

Just like all our nuclear weapons, the purpose of this weapon is deterence. What this weapon tells enemy leaders is that if they start something, they will personally pay the price, no matter how deep of a hole they dig.

Raider179 · « **Reply #34 on:** July 02, 2005, 04:57:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by J_A_B
Why would "10's of 1000s" of people downwind suffer "lethal" radiation?

Oh wait, "reports by some scientists (note that it doesn't say who, might be Greenpeace for all we know)" suggest that if this ANTI-BUNKER WEAPON was detonated in a city then a lot of people could die. Hmm....not exactly rocket science...detonate a 1-megaton weapon in a city and a lot of people might die. Wow...did they have to graduate from Yale or MIT or something just to figure that out? That's really putting their education to use! I'll go so far as to suggest that if you detonate a 1-megaton weapon in an urban setting, you're pretty likely to have a heck of a lot more than 50,000 people die. Look at what mere 18 kilotons did to Hiroshima.

We don't need a 1-megaton weapon to flatten cities though. We have 20+ megaton weapons to do that with. We need to kill enemy bunkers which are very frequently underneath mountains. That is the job the proposed weapon is designed for. This new weapon looks like an EXCELLENT addition to the US
arsenal.

That website looks like a typical anti-nuke site which is high on fearmongering and short on sense.

J_A_B

Ummm no.

Brooks and the National Nuclear Security Administration are also involved in efforts to develop so-called bunker-busting nuclear bombs, including the proposed Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Weapon, a low-yield bomb that is supposed to be able to burrow deeply enough into the ground that most of the fallout would be contained. However, Brooks was recently forced to disabuse Congress of any notion that radioactivity would be substantially minimized by the weapons. In testimony in March, Brooks said: “I really must apologize for my lack of precision if we in the administration have suggested that it was possible to have a bomb that penetrated far enough to trap all fallout. . . . I don’t believe the laws of physics will ever let that be true.

Linton F. Brooks
National Nuclear Security Administration: Director

J_A_B · « **Reply #35 on:** July 02, 2005, 07:05:55 PM »

Raider179--

The proposed weapon is not really "low-yield", unless you consider a 1 megaton weapon "low-yield" (compared to some of our 20+ megaton weapons I suppose it could be seen that way). A traditional low-yield nuke is something on the order of 1 kiloton, like the Genie A2A rocket our interceptors used to carry.

The risk from fallout from using ANY nuclear weapon, while present, is usually exaggerated. There have been many dozens if not hunders of nuclear detonations right here in the USA, some airbursts, some (all the more recent ones) underground. Is the fallout from THOSE explosions something you worry about on a daily basis? Are all your friends dying of radiation poisoning? Didn't think so. Smoking and alcohol kill more people than fallout ever has. So why worry about the prospect of using one or two bunker-busters in a likely remote region halfway across the globe?

Even then, the guy who's quote you linked only said that you can't trap "all" fallout. Testing in Nevada and other sites as well as computer simulation has proven that while you can't trap it all, you CAN trap signitigant portions of it--further reducing the risk. Is a nuclear bunker buster something I'd want to use with reckless abandon every time the enemy dug a trench? No, not by a long shot. Is it a valuable tool to maintain in the inventory in limitied quantity? Experience has proven yes.

Even more important than having these weapons, though, is making people believe that we will actually USE them if we have to. A weapon is worthless if your opponent knows that you'll never use it against him. This is the REAL issue with nuclear weapons--are they worth building when our enemies are well aware that our chances of actually employing them are at best slim?

J_A_B

bj229r · « **Reply #36 on:** July 02, 2005, 07:45:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman

Today, can you imagine any scenario that would require our use of a nuke? [/B]

How about a deep underground breeder reactor in Iran? Doesn ANYone think this govt WOULDNT use a nuclear weapon if it had one?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #37 on:** July 02, 2005, 10:58:15 PM »

I can see why others would be against this.....

But as far as US citizens go....

Why would you NOT want the US to have the best and the most powerfull in the inventory? Seriously, if an enemy was developing, or planned on developing, or would be capable of developing this in the next decade wouldn't you want the US to allready have this technology down?

I mean why not? Do you really think the US is going to use a nuke in a conventional fight?

If you get rid of this why not get rid of ALL US Nukes. I say this because you probably are going to say something on the lines of we arent' responsible bla bla bla And I'd counter with get rid of all of them and let the argument begin that way.

bj229r · « **Reply #38 on:** July 02, 2005, 11:15:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FaliFan
Why would they?

Why would people strap on a bomb vest and walk into a crowded market full of women and children and blow them to bits? There are a LOTS of peeps like that in middle east--dont assume they have anything like the same respect for life as you

Gunslinger · « **Reply #39 on:** July 02, 2005, 11:33:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bj229r
Why would people strap on a bomb vest and walk into a crowded market full of women and children and blow them to bits? There are a LOTS of peeps like that in middle east--dont assume they have anything like the same respect for life as you

wow good point.

Don't forget public transportation, Cafes, resturaunts, clubs, malls and places of worshim (mosqes and churches) have all been bombed by terrorists.

SOB · « **Reply #40 on:** July 03, 2005, 12:08:19 AM »

The ones in charge don't strap bombs to themselves, they let others do that for 'em. I think it's unlikely Iran would let any of their nuclear material get away from them. Should that happen, and should any of that nuclear material find its way into the US as a bomb, bad things will happen to the people in charge in Iran. And they know this.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #41 on:** July 03, 2005, 12:19:37 AM »

Cos yeah, arab extremists would never do anything crazy or rash.

SOB · « **Reply #42 on:** July 03, 2005, 12:34:39 AM »

The leaders of Iran, in a nice comfortable place of power where we can find 'em. No, I don't think they would. Of course, it's all just conjecture.

Raider179 · « **Reply #43 on:** July 03, 2005, 01:35:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by J_A_B
Raider179--

The proposed weapon is not really "low-yield", unless you consider a 1 megaton weapon "low-yield" (compared to some of our 20+ megaton weapons I suppose it could be seen that way). A traditional low-yield nuke is something on the order of 1 kiloton, like the Genie A2A rocket our interceptors used to carry.

The risk from fallout from using ANY nuclear weapon, while present, is usually exaggerated. There have been many dozens if not hunders of nuclear detonations right here in the USA, some airbursts, some (all the more recent ones) underground. Is the fallout from THOSE explosions something you worry about on a daily basis? Are all your friends dying of radiation poisoning? Didn't think so. Smoking and alcohol kill more people than fallout ever has. So why worry about the prospect of using one or two bunker-busters in a likely remote region halfway across the globe?

Even then, the guy who's quote you linked only said that you can't trap "all" fallout. Testing in Nevada and other sites as well as computer simulation has proven that while you can't trap it all, you CAN trap signitigant portions of it--further reducing the risk. Is a nuclear bunker buster something I'd want to use with reckless abandon every time the enemy dug a trench? No, not by a long shot. Is it a valuable tool to maintain in the inventory in limitied quantity? Experience has proven yes.

Even more important than having these weapons, though, is making people believe that we will actually USE them if we have to. A weapon is worthless if your opponent knows that you'll never use it against him. This is the REAL issue with nuclear weapons--are they worth building when our enemies are well aware that our chances of actually employing them are at best slim?

J_A_B

The 100 KT Sedan nuclear explosion, one of the Plowshares excavation tests, was buried at a depth of 635 feet. The main cloud and base surge are typical of shallow-buried nuclear explosions. The cloud is highly contaminated with radioactive dust particles and produces an intense local fallout.

In the Plowshare tests, roughly 50 percent of the total radioactivity produced in the explosion was distributed as local fallout — the other half being confined to the highly-radioactive crater.

In order to be fully contained, nuclear explosions at the Nevada Test Site must be buried at a depth of 650 feet for a 5 kiloton explosive — 1300 feet for a 100-kiloton explosive.2 Even then, there are many documented cases where carefully sealed shafts ruptured and released radioactivity to the local environment.

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

Fallout may be exaggerated in some cases but to say it is insignifgant is ignorant. You ask why not use it, I ask why would you want to start making it acceptable to use Nukes? No one has used one since WW2(in anger) and that is the way it should stay. There is no justification for using one, short of final defense of the country.

Your information on underground testing in nevada is faulty. Maybe you could post a link?

The nuclear bunker buster is not a deterant type weapon. It is for offensive purposes only and I see no way it could deter someone just knowing "we will use it".

Nilsen · « **Reply #44 on:** July 03, 2005, 02:30:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by bj229r
How about a deep underground breeder reactor in Iran? Doesn ANYone think this govt WOULDNT use a nuclear weapon if it had one?

ehhh uhhhh.. USA has nukes, and more than one too!! They sit ontop of missiles and everything!