Animation-- Effects of dropping a "Bunker Buster" Nuke/ Must See

[TexasLawyer]

From the Union of Concerned Scientists. Pass it on. Send the link to your Senators and Reps and tell them that using such weapons would be madness.

animation
The Nuclear Bunker Buster
Robust Nuclear Earth Pentrator

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

[donco6]

1. Alpha and Beta and Sarin, Oh My!

Jeez.

[hedgehog]

2. Speechless

but kicked to keep it active.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. 3M+ short term deaths.

At what point are we morally obliged to put aside our normal affairs and devote our activities to bringing down our government?

[ladjf]

4. Even if we are willing, how could it be done?

[TexasLawyer]

6. A good easy start is

voting this post up so that more people will see it. e-mail the animation to friends and family, spread it around. And have EVERYBODY send the link to their Senators and Representatives.

Sy Hersh says that BushCo is doing "selective briefing" among Washington lawmakers. He said no one is making a peep when they are told that tactical nukes are the only way to "take out" bunkers. I'll bet anything that even those few who are being briefed are not getting the whole story.

[Texaroo]

19. Hey TexasLawyer

I took your advice and gave up on the idiots at the Chron forum. Well mostly. jmdorclm

[mom cat]

43. K&R and sending it to everyone.

[ChickMagic]

56. K&R

I also sent it to a doc here at the school who is a
world specialist in the radiation effects of Chernobyl.
I just did a talk for him about a month ago. He may
spread this far and wide.

[KittyWampus]

74. Massive Work Strikes are the only solution

[Hutzpa]

79. A good place is not to start thinking n/t

[Point-X]

104. How could we?

When you ask how we can get control back of our government you need to rememeber one thing.

Who controls our government?

You do not really think your vote actually gets counted do you?

You do not think your local representative gives a crap what you think or want do you?

No. You need to only do one thing, STOP BUYING ANYTHING.

This is not a "democracy" this is a Capitalist Society and to hurt a Capitalist you only need one weapon of Mass Destruction! Your Wallet, and like your GF used to tell you, Kepp it in your pants!

Peace

[ncrainbowgrrl]

108. Welcome to DU, Point-X!

:hi:

[paparush]

66. THAT, my friend, is the Question!!! Lets Roll!

[blogslut]

5. Awww shucks

It's a just a little practical underground testing is all...

Anybody else beginning to see that, for the last 50-60 years the US has been in the ammunitions business, not the democracy business? It's not about freedom or communists or right and wrong. It's about greed and power, obtained through the proliferation of weapons. This is what those that control America are really doing.

[BrklynLiberal]

7. Holy Moley !!

[DianaForRussFeingold]

14. How secure are we! Great Post...

Thank you I will pass this along. Valerie Plame's job,was to prevent terrorist from getting these weapons. This is frightening..Here is who we trust this kind of weapons to.Smears,Lies And Video Tape http://streaming.americanprogress.org/ThinkProgress/2005/smears_lies_videotape_medium.320.240.mov.html



:scared:

[DianaForRussFeingold]

18. I wanted to Recommend for Greatest Page.

Sorry i don't have enough posts. I guess I'll have to just thank. all the other posts,that I like.Hmmm. I'll have a thousand posts in no time! Keep on Rockin In The Free World!http://www.vh1.com/vspot/player.jhtml?lnk=p&plid=69908&source=OD_PLAYLIST&launchedFrom=/vspot/

[Kailassa]

63. You don't need 1000, think it was about 100, so keep at it ;-)

[dipsydoodle]

27. Well expressed !

Thought I was the only person who used that expression these days and it was an age thing.

[BrklynLiberal]

29. Maybe it is an age thing. I am no spring chicken.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[dipsydoodle]

40. I will sleep well

with a smile on my face thinking of your line of emoticons. Wicked !

[Earth_First]

8. Unreal.

Of course they* would have you believe otherwise.

[SmokingJacket]

9. the Union of Concerned Scientists ROCKS. K &R nt

[Marie26]

10. K&R

Thanks for posting this.

[Junkdrawer]

11. When the UCS advocates alternative military strategies...

you know we're in deep shit... :scared:

[cynatnite]

12. Thank You!

bookmarked!

[spuddonna]

13. First off, holy crap!

That's just horrifying... 3 Million deaths, immediately - did I get that right? Up to 35 million exposed to radiation? omg...

Do we have these types of weapons currently in our arsenal, but possibly on a smaller scale? I know that funding was cut on some newer model of bunker buster last fall. (Well, they SAID they were going to cut funding, but who knows if it wasn't funded from Rummy's secret slush fund...)

[TexasLawyer]

17. US dumps bunker-buster - or not?

The project for the RNEP looks to have been cancelled, but Jane's Information Group speculates work may continue under another name.

17 November 2005

US dumps bunker-buster - or not?

In late October, US Congressional leaders agreed to withhold USD4 million requested by the US administration to complete pre-engineering studies into the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP). Although it has been widely reported that the programme has now been cancelled, there is evidence that the RNEP project may yet continue under a new name.

The body in charge of US nuclear weapons programmes, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which operates within the US Department of Energy, has stated it wants to complete the RNEP study at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, as planned, but with Pentagon funding. It proposes renaming the study. Although the NNSA had asked to drop Energy Department funding, reflecting a "change in policy" favouring research into conventional penetrator options, the nuclear option may not have been abandoned. The RNEP programme may be as much motivated by the development of new technology directly applicable to a new generation of lower-yield nuclear weapons, as by the perceived military need for a weapon that is able to destroy hard and deeply buried targets (HDBTs).

<snip>

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jid/jid051117_1_n.shtml

[spuddonna]

20. Could the "Divine Strake" be this test they talk about in the article?

I mean, it all makes sense time-line wise...

[TexasLawyer]

22. DS is supposed to be a conventional

weapon. But who knows?

[spuddonna]

25. I'll bet it is...

I'll bet this will be how they either 1)get more $$$ to build the 'super bunker buster', or 2) confirm the theory of deep earth penetration, and ok its use on the sites they believe to be down 1000ft in Iran.

And I hope I'm all wrong and none of it is connected. :(

[bdamomma]

54. last nite

on AAR I was listening to Mike Malloy he said if this nuclear attack took place it would affect, Iran all the way to India, all those people dead, do we really want this in our name.

[spuddonna]

91. It's madness...

But the madness of King George seems to have no limits, which scares the hell out of me.

It boggles my mind...

[AngryOldDem]

67. Assuming that the wind direction is east of Iran....

...am I correct to assume that the death and exposure rate would be much higher if the wind were blowing more westerly?

Madness. Sheer, unmitigated madness.

[TexasLawyer]

84. North wind-- 11 million people in and around Teheran

west wind-- Iraq, including our own troops.




Population (2006 est.): 68,688,433 (growth rate: 1.1%); birth rate: 17.0/1000; infant mortality rate: 40.3/1000; life expectancy: 70.3; density per sq mi: 109

Capital and largest city (2003 est.): Teheran, 11,224,800 (metro. area), 7,893,700 (city proper)

Other large cities: Mashad, 2,061,100; Isfahan, 1,378,600; Tabriz, 1,213,400

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107640.html

[lonestarnot]

15. Well this is what I had imagined. So disgusting!

[Iowa]

16. K&R

[Greyskye]

21. K & R

:kick:

[TexasLawyer]

23. 400 targets / Only ONE bunker buster?

As per the Hersh article:

<snip>

Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would have to be hit. He added:

I don’t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We’d want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special Operations units.


One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

<snip>

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

[TexasLawyer]

26. B61-11 Earth-Penetrating Weapon

Info from GlobalSecurity.org

B61-11 Earth-Penetrating Weapon

The W-61 EPW (earth penetrating warhead) project began in 1989. The EPW was a derivative of the B61-7, packaged in a high-strength steel case, and had gotten as far as production engineering in 1991.

The B61-11 is a new Mod of the B61 being converted from existing B61 Mod 7s. The basic differences in the two Mods are in the nose and tail configurations, and the elimination of the B61-7 parachute and gas generator. The similarities are that all B61-11 internal case hardware and components, including the IHE physics package and warhead electrical system, are from the B61-7. Some sources suggest that the B61-11 has a "dial-a-yield" feature, allowing its yield to range from less than a kiloton to several hundred kilotons. When configured to have a 10-kiloton yield and detonated 4 feet underground, the B61-11 can produce a shock wave sufficient to crush a bunker buried beneath 100 meters of layered rock. However, the December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review noted that "This single-yield, non-precision weapon cannot survive penetration into many types of terrain in which hardened underground facilities are located."

Stockpiled since 1968, the veteran B61 has been modified many times over the years to update its performance. Its latest modification is the B61 Mod 11 "earth-penetrater." The United States deployed the B61–11 bomb in the mid-1990s for an earth penetrating mission. The B61-11 is a new Mod of the B61 being converted from existing B61 Mod 7s. The basic differences in the two Mods are in the nose and tail configurations, and the elimination of the B61-7 parachute and gas generator. The similarities are that all B61-11 internal case hardware and components, including the IHE physics package and warhead electrical system, are from the B61-7.

<snip>

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61-11.htm

[spuddonna]

28. And they don't think it can go deep...

http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/B61-11.htm

Under the section "Warhead Yield And Mission Adequacy"
"The frozen soil proof drop tests conducted in Alaska in March 1998 suggests that the earth-penetration capability of the B61-11 is limited. During the test, two B61-11 shapes were dropped from a B-2 bomber at 8,000 feet. The two shapes hit the ground some 45 feet (15 meters) from each other. The Air Force said the B61-11 only proved capable of penetrating some 6-10 feet (2-3 meters) into the frozen soil. At best the weapon would penetrate 15-25 feet (5-8 meters). A photo taken of the retrieval of one of the bombs in Alaska suggests the penetration depth was around 18 feet (6 meters)." (NOTE:My emphasis added.)

So, this thing can go maybe 18ft, and can have a yield from 'less than a kiloton to several hundred kilotons'? omg The fallout would be enormous...

(ETA: I've removed the link to the image of the hole created during the test. When I went to link, I thought it would include the entire group of photos, and the caption, but it didn't. Since it was part of a larger graphic and I didn't want to take it out of context, I've removed it. You can find it under the paragraph below in the original link.)

[TexasLawyer]

48. But in addition to the penetration depth

the bombs have a seismic effect when they shake the earth. The animation shows a 1MT bomb producing a seismic shockwave big enough to take out any bunkers within 1,000 ft of the blast, even though the hole the bomb makes is much more shallow.

The building techniques over much of Iran makes me worried that the seismic shockwave itself will kill thousands. There seem to be many mud and stone dwellings that crumble in earthquakes, killing tens of thousands every time.

[spuddonna]

49. Thanks for the clarification...

For some reason when I read that this afternoon I didn't pick up the seismic damage caused. That is really troubling and I agree there would be many people killed by building collapse, just as it has happened in that area from naturally occurring earthquakes.

It is stunning and inconceivable that this is even being discussed as an option. The loss of life would be so catastrophic...

[helderheid]

24. thank you! I have sent this out

[Dudley_DUright]

30. I posted this article on bunker busters from "Physics Today"

on another thread, but it is also appropriate on this thread as well. As a member of the UCS, I agree that you would have to be insane to contemplate using these weapons, which probably means that Bush will use them at the first opportunity.

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-11/p32.html

[Pavulon]

31. Reality Check

This is propaganda. We should not use nuclear weapons in this role but this is bad data. Repeat Use of nuclear weapons is not appropriate in a first strike role..

1) B61mod11 is not a 1 mt weapon. It can not be configured to yield that high. It would be a sub-kiloton yield in that role. If it is the platform this weapon is/or will be developed on.

2) Weapons in the kiloton range were detonated in nevada at varying altitudes. Hundreds of nuclear weapons have been fired in the atmosphere. We shot them from cannons.

3) The compression wave through a dense material (like rock) would do the damage, not a blast effect or heat. The precursor wave of a surface blast of a 1 mt weapon would destroy a concrete building 1000 ft (1/4 mile or so) completely. A higher density material would only carry the blast more efficiently. The surface damage through air (less dense than rock or sand so a less efficient transmission media) vaporizes to beyond a mile.

4) There is no real data from the government on active weapon systems. All information around real systems would be classified. The b-61 is an old system, why would we use this design in stead of a more efficient smaller w-88 weapon. This all assumes the use of the b61mod11, not a more sophisticated weapon that can contain the blast, or limit the material ejected into the air.

That being said using nuclear weapons for this purpose is stupid. IMHO they are second strike only and the blast effect to the population would be moot because the purpose of the strike is to kill them all. That is the only logic that works with the bomb, no use (deter), or all in(slate wiper).

[idlisambar]

50. interesting

but do you dispute that if the bunker were buried deep enough, there is no way even the best possible nuclear bunker buster could destroy it. This article seems to suggest this is the case:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-11/p32.html

[Kailassa]

69. The notion that any "bunker-blaster" can contain the blast

is where the true propaganda is.

There is no way to use a nuclear warhead to destroy an underground bunker without causing enormous amounts of deadly radiation to spread outwards.

You say nuclear weapons are 2nd strike only. I can see no logical reason to use nuclear weapons as a 2nd strike measure. It's the same logic of: "you kicked my buddy so I'll kick your buddy." Killing innocent people in another country because bastards in that country have killed innocent people in your own solves nothing, and makes the complete extinction of humanity through nuclear winter more likely.

[helderheid]

32. imagine the fallout from just TESTING these.

[PA Democrat]

33. Bush is insane. Does he not realize the outrage that more than 3,000,000

dead would generate? Or his vile lust for war the only thing on his mind?

[Chimichurri]

36. Their bloodlust is astonishing. I'm sure these loons are fully briefed

on this. He is afterall the pResident and Rummy is his man.

Torture, Katrina, Iraq, these guys love death. I think their pychosis should be diagonosed and they should be kept away from others. They are a threat to everyone around them.

[Rocknrule]

38. This is a man who probably masturbates to Saving Private Ryan

War has the same effect on him that Girls Gone Wild has on most guys

[MadisonProgressive]

65. The second Holocaust? We're talking HOLOCAUST!

[Kailassa]

75. But it's not like they're civilized over there ya know.

They're only ragheads
'n they'll never know what hit them
'n we seriesly Need that oil
anyways, they'd blow us up first if we gave'em alf a chance
'n ya know those ugly biatches dont shave down there
'n them arabs are all queers anyway?

Besides, who doesn't enjoy a hugh fireworks night?
Them rag-heads oughta be grateful to us for making them look good once in their goddammed lives.

[Joanne98]

34. I love those guys

[ThoughtCriminal]

35. What if it fails to detonate?

I have no idea what the odds are of that happening, but I would worry that this is more likely for weapons that do no detonate before impact (damaged trigger). If this occurs, then we have delivered all the weapons grade material they need for at least one bomb unless there was a follow up strike just to destroy the dud.

[Mr_Spock]

37. lots of killin' - no wonder the chimp likes it!

Chimpy loves him some killin'!

[alfredo]

39. Thank you

[eek]

41. what would happen if one of these were dropped in the ocean?

?

[alfredo]

47. I guess it would do, on a smaller scale, what the

Bikini test did: killed millions of marine animals, irradiated everything around it.

[Sirveri]

112. nothing serious.

It would if detonated deep enough under water cause no signifigant increases in surface radiation levels. At best it would kill any fish in the vicinity of the detonation. If detonated near to the surface there is a signifigant chance of causing numerous radioactive nucleids which could be carried in a steam plume. However most nucleids created would decays away too rapidly to cause any effect on land, the only notable one would be the activated sodium ions in do to Na-Cl in water. Oh and Magnesium which is also present in water can be irradiated, I don't have my chart of the nucleids in front of me right now however so I could give you any real specifics.

[The Witch]

42. FUCK.

We are the Evil Empire.

[CrispyQ]

77. So true.

So sad.

[Generic Other]

44. Petrifying

totally petrifying.

What is the matter with us? Why are we standing for this?

[Liberty Belle]

45. 3 million dead, radiation sickness in 35 million people!

A radiation cloud would spread to India and Pakistan, covering a thousand mile radius.

Please, everyone, rally your community to lobby your Congressional leaders. We must stop this crime against humanity!

Here in our town, I've persuaded our newspaper editor to run a story in which we will interview local office holders, business, civic and religious leaders in all parties about their views on dropping nuclear weapons in Iran.

Activists hope to urge some sane Republicans in local positions of influence to join in lobbying our conservative Congressman to intervene, via impeachment if all else fails.

Let's do this everywhere!


kicking and recommending

[glitch]

61. That's a good idea for a couple of reasons. Brings the national gop home

to them, forcing them to disassociate themselves from their party and reconnect with humanity (hopefully).
Or, forces them to come out as bushists, on the record pro-nuclear war.

[tom_paine]

46. K & R

On this dark day, where through electronic "voting", Italy has joined the ranks of the BushPutinist Axis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4894584.stm

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/04/news/rome.php

PS I don't have the initial articles but the "script" is identical to the the Imperial Amerikan "election" of 2004.

[lovuian]

51. It really gives you the idea of what WWIII would be like

:nuke:

[eek]

62. Nostradamus, Shmostradamus.

Stanley Kubrick was the Top Doomsayer, man.
Doctor Strangelove was practically a documentary.

<<what WWIII would be like>>
I'll betcha it looks a good deal like that last act of the film .
The US launches The Bomb which incites every other bomb-carrying member nation of the Doomsday Club to launch theirs.



nb: When I was a kid we used to call it, "Mutually Assured Annihilation".
I think that has more zazz than WMD, no?

[ClayZ]

52. OMG.. K and R

:kick:

[LisaLynne]

53. Do you think the warmongers out there know this?

I have a feeling they might actually know that this isn't going to work for what they're telling us they want to use them for, but just want to use nuclear weapons so they can say they did. I know we've all said this before, but every time I think I can't possibly hear anything else that will shock me ...

And plus, if the radiation makes it to India, what about those mangos * loves so much? :sarcasm:

[CrispyQ]

81. These guys are itchin' to nuke someone -- bad.

And their base wants it too. I know a few repubs who are pissed at boosh right now, but if he nuked an Arab country, I think he'd be back in their good graces stronger than before.

[RedEarth]

55. Keep in mind these are scientists.... the radical right don't trust

scientists ...most likely some of these people also believe in global warming... some of them might even believe in evolution...even their name sounds a little suspicious "Union" of Concerned Scientists.

[Mnemosyne]

57. How many times does it need to be proved that

those in charge are absolutely insane?!!

[Akoto]

58. Bush has no use for scientists.

God forbid he should listen to the smart people for once. You know, the ones actually qualified to estimate damages and death toll numbers like those represented in the animation.

Our people and our government must wake up and do something about the administration. We're already deep in the hole, and in their desperation, the maniacs in charge are about to drag us into the abyss with them.

[Strawman]

59. I wonder if * is polling on this

If they're really planning on using nukes or even just seriously considering it, you can bet they're getting a baseline of public opinion so they can assess the effectiveness of propaganda efforts to justify using nukes.

They probably don't mind this "wild specualtion" if they're thinking about it. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they leaked to create a buzz on this in order to assess public opinion.

[AngryOldDem]

70. I imagine most of the idiots will be for it

I was lurking on another Internet site the other day and this story came up for discussion. "The U.S. is considering nuclear weapons against Iran." The very next post said, in huge type, "GOOD!"

I fear that person is not alone in his/her suicidal shortsightedness.

[Strawman]

80. Yep. It's like Thomas Franks wrote

"Russia Iran Disco Suck." That bit of grafitti Franks saw captures the essence of our contemporary political culture.

Hulk Bush will deliver a big fat nuclear leg drop to the Iron Sheik Ahmadinejad and the people will cheer. "Eye of the Tiger" and "Real American" will blare in the background as we're presented the heavyweight belt for most ass-kickin'-est country in the world. Mission accomplished.

It's depressing.

[CrispyQ]

82. "Mess with the bull, you get the horns!"

I read that line on some news site where comments are allowed. Unfrickinbelievable!

[Strawman]

83. Is that a country song?...yet?

In fact I'll bet some entrepenurially minded good American fella is probably writing a tune about Iran along those lines right now.

When the war starts it will be released and anyone who loves their country will love that song. I'd better grow a mullett, drive a big ass truck and sing along so nobody calls me a faggot. :sarcasm:

[Ensalada]

87. yeh that helps

the remedy to hate & violence is stereodtypes. very progressive.

[Jawja]

73. I wouldn't think so.

Remember, he called the millions in the streets before the Iraq invasion a "focus group." He didn't listen to this "focus group."

He won't be swayed by any poll against what he wants to do.

[Strawman]

78. oh they care

Did you see that WP article about the military planting stories with the NYT and Faux News yesterday? If they didn't care they wouldn't have crafted a bogus rationale for Iraq. Why use Judy Miller?

I would think they would be worried about public morale for a nuclear attack on Iran. I would fully expect them to try to manufacture a rationale and assess it's effectiveness.

I know their current poll numbers seem to suggest that they don't care, and they certainly don't pay attention to protestors (then again, neither does the media) but why would they go to all that trouble lying to the public about the reasons for war in Iraq if they didn't care at all?

[berni_mccoy]

60. GOV'T TEST VIDEO HERE =====>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x902307

[TexasLawyer]

71. thanks for those--

very scary to see them for real.

[Catherine Vincent]

64. Kick!

:-(

[oc2002]

68. Well, since Bush is a true believer of 'end days' evangelical Armagedon...

this looks like the perfect tool to begin WW3.

[marmar]

72. Frightening....

These monsters at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. are pure evil. :evilfrown: :scared: :grr:
That animation, by he way, blows away the silly cartoons Colin Powell presented to the U.N.

[nonconformist]

76. K & R. A must see. nt

[bunkerbuster1]

85. Makes me want to change my screen name

These things actually suck at what they're supposed to do, huh?

[SupplyConcerns]

101. Yeah, the video really brings home the terrible destructiveness

Of the "bunker busters". If one of these were dropped, it'd be like being named after the Asian tsunami or something.

[Imalittleteapot]

86. Terrifying. Just sent the link to Senators, Rep and

*...all of the Republicans representing me in Texas. Everyone should do the same.

Thanks TexasLawyer for this important link!!!!!!:

nuke: :scared: nuke: :scared: nuke: :scared: nuke: :scared: nuke: :scared:

[heart of darkness]

88. What does the UCS know! There animation missed the obvious double top ..

secret design innovations the military has added...the nukular powered drilling head that goes on the front of the bomb. Travelling 500 mph, with the drill going nukular fast, it should have no problem penetrating to the center of the earth (because its nukular hard too). Both Dubs and I saw it in the movie The Core, so it must be true, cuz those guys were scientists..real scientists, not the pansies that want to talk about how hot it is or stuff.

oh christ, freeping makes my head hurt...

[renate]

96. welcome to DU!

..."freeping makes my head hurt"... :rofl:

[heart of darkness]

107. thanks1

:)

[Up2Late]

89. One thing they didn't address is, what would happen if one of these...

...stupid bombs hit a pocket of Natural Gas or Oil/Gas? Could it set off a chain reaction? Or contaminate all of the areas Oil? Or...:shrug:

[mdmc]

90. kick

too late to r

[TexasLawyer]

106. good question

[Sirveri]

113. it shouldn't.

Gas and oil need oxygen to burn, a nuclear explosion would displace the oxygen thus not allowing the fuel to burn (they use explosives to stop burning oil wells, the explosives displace the oxygen supply thereby putting out the fire). In addition most oil wells are too deep to feel the signifigant thermal effects from a nuclear explosion. Finally it's unlikely that any of the oil would be signifigantly activated by a nearby explosion. If some oil did somehow manage to become activated it would redistribute the activity throught the entire volume of oil eventually and not even be noticeable above background radiation levels.

[MrBlueSky]

92. DA'G!!!

Didn't touch the bunkers... yet the cancer rate of all nations from Iran to India... like... triples... or quadruples (including our young people in Afghanistan!!!)

But it DOES set off the sarin... along with that mushroom cloud.

I don't know about the rest of you... but I get shivers from that!!!

[DUHandle]

93. This puts the animation that Powell showed to at the U.N.

about the mobile WMD labs to shame.

[onehandle]

94. Either way, we bomb them.

And we will never have peace.

[singe]

95. francine busby calls

off topic but please consider making some francine busby get out the vote calls for moveon.org today. she is running to fill duke cunningham's vacant congressional seat and the election is today. it will be close and a win would make a real dent in bush's highly dense and dented head:

http://political.moveon.org/phone/volunteer/eday.html?id=7298-2935788-oPw4eXBwflbzWPHWAOWQ.A&t=2

[TexasLawyer]

100. That's not off topic AT ALL

The San Diego election can be a watershed event, especially if Busby can win handily.

A Busby win is a message to BushCo that Americans want peace. They don't want war and they're sick of the special interest politics that took us to war. And they especially don't want wars of aggression initiated by the US with nukes.

[adarling]

97. wow people, we need to make sure this doesn't happen

get to the streets and lets start an insurrection, that will really make the repukes go nuts. This makes me sick, i don't understand how they would even consider using a nuclear weapon. This is just so freaking crazy, so this man is going to start WWIII

[oc2002]

98. Al Franken thinks this is a ploy BY BUSH to use HERSH on purpose

to put presure on Iran.

AL, you STUPID SLUT.

You actualy think this? We are not even in negotiations with IRAN!

THIS IS FOR REAL.

[rodak7]

99. '/bunker Busters'

There is a very good discussion of this subject at http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm. The UCS is absolutely right about this. A nuclear 'bunker buster' would not be an underground explosion. I have to point out, however, that the UCS talks about a 1 megaton bomb. 'Bunker busters' are low yield, in the 1 kiloton range. Interestingly enough, there is going to be a test in Nevada soon to demonstrate the effect of a bomb this size, not nuclear but rather 700 tons of high explosive. The purpose is to calibrate for sub-kiloton nukes. These people really want to do this. Down here in New Zealand we aren't very appreciative of this stuff.

[TexasLawyer]

102. No, not correct that bunker busters are 1KT

See posts 17 and 26. When last the public officially knew, B61-11 could pack up to several hundred kilotons. This bomb was developed clandestinely by the US and there is every indication that development and refinement have continued clandestinely. See Janes article. So who knows what the government has at this point?

There is also evidence that a 1KT detonation would be like a popgun to an underground bunker. If the US would drop a nuclear bomb, the bomb would presumably be one that has a ghost of a chance of "doing the job".

Also, keep in mind that there are 400 targets. How many of these will need bunker busters?


From a 1997 article:

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj97mello

New bomb, no mission
The government says it is no longer building new bombs. So why is it deploying a new version of the B61 nuclear bomb?

By Greg Mello
May/June 1997 pp. 28-32 (vol. 53, no. 03) © 1997 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

The cold war may be over, but the nuclear arms race has not quite ended. The United States is fielding a new nuclear weapon--a bomb that was used to threaten Libya, a non-nuclear nation, even before it was deployed.

The B61 "mod-11" gravity bomb is the first new nuclear capability added to the U.S. arsenal since 1989. It was developed and deployed secretly, without public or congressional debate, and in apparent contradiction to official domestic and international assurances that no new nuclear weapons were being developed in the United States.

<snip>

A bomb for all reasons
The B61-7, from which the B61-11 is made, has a selectable yield ranging from 0.3 to about 340 kilotons. It was first placed in service in 1985. (The original B61 entered the stockpile in 1968.)

According to Chuck Hansen, one of the nation's leading independent authorities on the U.S. nuclear stockpile, the B61-7 can be fuzed for air or surface bursts, and it has "a hardened ground-penetrator nose" with a retarded contact-burst fuzing option. It can be dropped with or without a parachute.

William M. Arkin and Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defense Council (and authors of the Bulletin's regular feature, the "NRDC Nuclear Notebook") estimate that there are about 750 B61-7s in the active stockpile, along with about 600 B61-3s,-4s, and-10s.

<snip>

[genieroze]

103. Kicked and sent to the usenet

[novalib]

105. Horrifying!

I think we Americans sometimes need to understand what we are doing.

Is there a graphic that shows what the effect of a "bunker Buster" would be if it were dropped, say, near a large American city??

[FogerRox]

109. speard it far and wide, Kickin

[orleans]

110. all the repukes will be so surprised when the shit hits the fan

"we didn't know"
"no one thought that would actually happen"

[Imagevision]

111. Bush, a madman running the country with advice from madmen...!

And this putz wants no checks & balances?!! How can this be? how can the notion of something this bazaar even make conversation??

[haab]

114. shocking....

....we'd even consider using a nuke...!!! What has happened to us....?


Why is the US Admin refusing to talk with the Iranians one-on-one...? The Neocon previously blocked all avenues to dialogue..... it must be opened for us to reach an understanding.


The Iranians are mad, but I don't believe they're as mad as us to consider using nukes.


The IAEA has found absolutely no evidence of any nuclear "weaponization".... why then must we conclude its mainly to create a bomb, why couldn't it truly be for civilian use only?

Why should I believe Bush? Surely it's just another lie, similar to Iraq... history is repeating itself.