Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

fred79 RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 3/12/2003 12:26:43 AM

I would rather see the bunker sealed and then use a penatrating napalm weapon to take out the shelter the fire would gaurentee death of any one in the bunk but not taint the ground as perminatly as a nuke would alterativly they would modify the gps guidance from one of the new moab to use with a daisy cutter modified to be used as a penatrating bomb. accomlishing the same goal. teh moab it self obviously would have difficulty deploying effectivly in a multilevel bunker.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 3/12/2003 6:56:20 PM

MOAB isn't for getting at deep bunkers and sanitzing them. (Although, it's perfectly possible that they might be suitable for medium deep bunkers without bio, chem, or radiation hazards. I'd think the concussion could collapse all but the most deeply buried and heavily reinforced structures.) There's at least one new weapon reported for dealing with bio/chem hazards. It's a real monster. Combines a penetrator with a very high heat explosive, with an added tail of chemical agents which would disrupt any living organism and blast apart chemical agent's at their molecular bonds.

Quote Reply

denheer RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 3/26/2003 11:39:25 AM

A better way is to have a conventional warhead delivered bij a missile flying mach 5 or up and with a hardenend head (tungsten/depleted uranium). A missile flying mach 5 will penetrate any bunker with ease, even if its hardend/thickend. And yes a napalm like payload will probably kill all of the bunker population. NEVER use nukes if there is another way.

Quote Reply

fred79 RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 3/26/2003 12:38:19 PM

if you really want maximum penatration we would easily look to a space based kinetic weapon. from space it would require much less fuel to get up to speed for a high speed reentry. possibly a good way to use those nuclear silo missle bodies rather than destroy them, or use on a modified nucklear submarine.

Quote Reply

denheer RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 3/26/2003 3:54:56 PM

A space based weapon is way to expensive. A normaly launched rocket (air/land) will be enough. Guidance will be the most hard part to get correct, but then again, it's not THAT hard. ;)

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 3/26/2003 6:30:03 PM

You would NOT use a simple penetrator round, by choice, against even a deeply buried target containing chemical or biological agents. This is why we've been scrambling to come up with something suitable, and why the possibility of a penetrating nuclear warhead has been raised. The idea is NOT to simply scatter toxic materials. It's to destroy them, render them inactive.

Quote Reply

fred79 RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 3/26/2003 7:06:49 PM

I don't see why a spaced based weapon would be so expensive. The way I see it dropping from space is a cheap way to get the velocity necassary, we have lifting vehicle being crushed now. we could keep them and rearm with a modified warhead for your roll. we could construct a reentry vehicle that could withstand a high speed entry use GPS guidance to aquire a flight path in high altitude so that if GPS communication is comprimised at low altitude it would follow the previous fall path, and use what ever explosive element necessary and what ever ancillary weapons. we could also use some kind of follow on sealant warhead, useing patterned submunitions to bury it in surrounding earth or maybe even some type of foam based sealant(like a fuel air bomb only with self activationg foam like they use to put out fires). other than developing the warhead most of the work is done. We could develope a deep penatration warhead that could be carried by any submarine or launched from a silo in the US and hit a bunker any where in the world. people say that it could start WW# but we could anounce its launch hours before hand and still hit a bunker before anyhting could be removed.

Quote Reply

denheer RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 4/4/2003 1:11:59 PM

About 20.000 dollars per kg is quite expensive to get up in space if you ask me. If you want to have a re-entry weapon with double shielding (heat from re-entry and high impact of the bunker) this will be a heavy and costly dart. Also, a space bases weapon will be on a known course because of it's flight path. Even with multiple sattelites you've got more prediction than with a single conventional bomber. Then we got another problem; the re-entry. How much energy you think it will cost to slowdown a space bases re-entry weapon? You can't just release it. If you do, it just stays where it is. You need a rocket to slow its path so it's orbit wil get to a lower path. It will use lots of energy to make it a precise weapon. so, it will be bigger and more costly to get into space. If you can drop this weapons from a normal bomber you save a lot of money. Also, in wartime it may be hard to get enough weapons into space. Space bases weapons that release ordenance are not an option until anti-gravity shows up. and even then you don't heve to get it onto space first. ;)

Quote Reply

denheer RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 4/4/2003 1:25:37 PM

Aha, just reading now you want to use old ballistic missiles to be use for this purpose. (I should start reading first...;) Still we keep most of the problems and we are even getting some more; -The bodies who are waiting for destruction are without the fuel, which is not cheap. -Launching a waepon from mainland USA with a flightpath over highly populated area's seems to me like maddness. -Using a bomber is much cheaper. -An ICBM can maybe carry about 15 bunkerbusters at a time. A B1 can probably carry double that load. For me space bases release weapons are out of the question.

Quote Reply

fred79 RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 4/4/2003 4:46:43 PM

yea but a ballistic missle can leave the USA and strike a target anywhere in teh world in 30minutes can any bomber do that? also since the basic delivery system is in existance it wouldn't cost that much. also it wouldn't be any more dangerous than any countries space program. it would travel over water until it entered space and at that point unless it was deploying warheads it would just float in space until it hit teh atmosphere and desina grate. and it would be much less dangerous than launching nuclear armed ones. also they could be used to just launch satalites into space the launch system is developed and the rockets already exist. I would rather see them destroying the warheads and stockpiling the nuclear material than destroying the rockets that could be used again. they could even be used to develope some type of recovery pod for space shuttle disastors so we could return just the pepole the same way we brought them backi teh past is a capsule.

Quote Reply

denheer RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 4/5/2003 6:16:47 AM

True, I like to see those missiles used for something else than destruction too. It's a good idea to have them used for putting small sattelites into space, give them to universities and you will see some really creative stuff! Such a waste to destroy them. And of course the ability to strike something within 30 minutes is very good for political reasons. To me it seems it's not that usefull in a war that's already underway because you can use bombers already in the area.

Quote Reply

fred79 RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 4/5/2003 11:22:41 PM

my thought would be to use them instead of actions like clinto took against Iraq in teh mid 90's were he launched 40-50 tomahawks. to launch a tomahawk they have to get a ship in teh area and then launch missle over someone elses territory. instead we could use a ICBM to launch multiple GPS guided standard munitions directly into a nations airspace from space with out violating other nations airspace. no permission needed. also the Idea of allowing our universities to develope satalite to be launched by ICBM's into space for modern study. this could also greatly increase teh speed to which we get more advanced space craft constructed.

Quote Reply

RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 2/7/2004 9:52:34 AM

Numewrous studies on the subject have shown that in order for a "bunker busting nuke" to not contaminate the surrounding area, the required depth is prohibitively high and the required explosive yield prohibitively low. You can read more on this at www.fas.org. This entire concept is little more than a political and economic fiasco which will not create any realistic result. We'd end up with a second-strike weapon (as in one that no president would authorize the use of unless we had already been hit with a WMD), which doesnt solve the original problem at all..

Quote Reply

Professor Fickle RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 11/24/2004 3:23:59 PM

Using nuclear bombs to attack deep underground bunkers would produce a good amount radiation and nuclear fall out. It would have to go deep for the radiation not to escape in to the surrounding population. Wouldn?t it be better if the bunker buster used a thermal nuclear bomb (Hydrogen bomb) instead? The only drawback is that thermal nuclear bomb are complex and might not withstand penetrating deep in to the earth.

Quote Reply

reefdiver RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 2/14/2005 9:57:31 PM

My observations to some of the conversations: 1) Using nukes will never be acceptable except as a 2nd strike weapon in response to another nuke. 2) Using space based or old ICBM bunker busters could easily be interpreted as a nuke ICBM. Launching one towards anywhere would get a bunch of countries very, very nervous (Russia, China, etc). How could they tell what its intentions and more important - warhead were? 3) I don't know what altitude the US drops the current breed of JDAM guided bunker busters from, but I do wonder what the effect would be if you could make a special UAV that could carry them to say 70,000 ft and drop them. Perhaps add a small rocket to accelerate them straight down at even higher velocity? Would such altitude make a significance difference? I assume it would require a stronger penetrator. 4) How about dropping a precisely timed sequence of JDAMS, with intermediate penetrators, precisely on the same spot one after another followed by multiple large deep penetrators? Would this have any effect - in other words could you basically dig a deep hole?

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - February 9, 2010
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us