BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters

Subject: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Donuel
Date: 23 May 03 - 09:14 AM

The strategic nuclear bunker buster bombs that (illegally) went into production last month has retroactively been OK'd by the US Congress. (rubberstamped).

The propoganda that they only clear out caves and bunkers is a lie.

They are a bit more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb.
Yes they will penetrate50 feet underground at their full detonation but that will insure hundreds of times more fallout than an air burst. Tactical to the extreme if one hit the Eiffel tower it would level Paris to the suburbs.

The administration has its modern day Dr. Strangelove that has been lobbying that nuclear war is desireable and winable for the last 7 years.

For those of you who would like to meet him...

http://www.nipp.org/Adobe/volume%201%20complete.pdf



http://foreignpolicy.com/pdf/victory_is_possible.pdf



Quick link for those who have no time to read...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2082846/


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2781487

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Raedwulf
Date: 23 May 03 - 06:28 PM

What are you getting at Donuel?

So they're "a bit more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb"? So what? Little Boy is to modern nukes what the Brown Bess musket is to modern infantry rifles. The comparison is valueless & irrelevant.

"The propaganda that they only clear out caves and bunkers.." isn't a lie. The bunker busters are designed to bust bunkers, & that's what they get used for. If the US wanted to take out Paris, it'd use a nuke appropriate to the target...

...And probably a lot more powerful, because "if one hit the Eiffel tower it would level Paris to the suburbs" is almost certainly untrue. If the average BB is only "a bit more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb", I very much doubt it would "level" that much in the extraordinarily unlikely event that such a weapon were ever used airburst (Note: LB detonated at a consideraably higher altitude than LB). I suspect that there would be many buildings still standing (though no people, unless they were really unlucky...).

If the US wants to "level" a city, it will use a warhead of multi-MegaTon yield (LB was estimated to be only around 15KT), or (more likely) a multi-warhead weapon of considerably lower overall yield.

If you want to know more about Hiroshima, try this Japanese site.

I am against nuclear weapons (as any sane person ought to be, on the whole). I am also against people spreading misinformation (ditto).

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Raedwulf
Date: 23 May 03 - 06:30 PM

Small correction: I meant to say "Note: LB detonated at a considerably higher altitude than the Eiffel Tower."

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 May 03 - 07:06 PM

According to what I have read, the so-called "bunker busters" run around 5 kilotons or somewhat under, compared to the 15 kiloton Hiroshima bomb. However, radioactive fallout from even a "small" ground bust would be enormous compared to that of a sky detonation like that over Hiroshima.

But this is like several people locked in a phone booth arguing over the size of the hand grenades they plan to use against each other. As far as I'm concerned, I think they ought to blow themselves to Kingdom Come. But do it on some other planet, please.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Raedwulf
Date: 23 May 03 - 07:25 PM

DF - I wouldn't disagree with the last bit! But the first bit is wrong, AIUI. Airburst distributes far more radiation over a much greater area than subterranean (which is not the same as ground burst).

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 23 May 03 - 08:20 PM

Raedwulf-Short-term radiation, yes, but a ground-burst or subterranean creates far more fallout, which eventually gets dispersed over a greater area than the primary radiation reaches.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 May 03 - 09:00 PM

I'd go dig out my copy of "Effects of Nuclear Weapons" but it's buried under a (literal) ton and a half of books. However:

ANY explosion forces air out from the source of the explosion, creating a vacuum. Then, because Nature abhors a vacuum, the air rushes back in. If the explosion is up in the air and the sphere of displaced air touches the ground, the air sucked up into the vacuum will create a "mushroom cloud" effect. This effect will take place no matter what explosive is used -- nuclear, thermonuclear, or conventional. You can even work at it and get a mushroom cloud by using a firecracker.

Thus, an air burst will suck debris up into the radioactive "cloud" and this debris will later disburse as radioactive fallout. (The smaller the peices the farther the wind carries them, too.) Moreover, if the explosion is high enough, you won't get a mushroom cloud at all, and the amount of fallout would be much smaller. (As for EMP, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.)

A burst on the surface will give you lots and lots of dirt, but the area of fallout won't be as great as an air burst.

An underground burst, unless it breaks the surface, might not give you any fallout at all. Breaking the surface would give you fallout proportional to the size of the break.

Drop a nuke into, say, Puget Sound and detonate it and you could spray Seattle with radioactive water. Wrap a nuke in the proper shell and you increase the cobalt-60 fallout, the cesium-137 fallout, or whatever.

But why use nukes to bust bunkers? The US already has MOAB -- rocket that sucker into the ground and the shockwave would work just fine.

I know too damned much about this to enjoy talking about it.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 May 03 - 09:09 PM

Am I right in understanding that current treaty obligations accepted by the United States would mean that any use of these nuclear weapons would be in breach of these, and therefore a criminal act, not open to legalisation by the US Congress even if it wanted to do so?

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 24 May 03 - 11:45 AM

Yes. International law takes precedence over federal law, and any use of nuclear weapons violates a number of international treaties to which we are signatory.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 May 03 - 12:35 PM

Ah. All we have to do is to announce that the terms of that agreement are no longer operative- these are different days, you know. We can't have terror, you know.

At least, that seems to be the way we operate.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: GUEST
Date: 24 May 03 - 01:24 PM

The US will violate all norms of civilized behavior (or rather, the organized crime syndicate controlling the actions of the leaders of the US will force them to violate decent standards), and we will see horrific new weapons systems funded and built in defiance of treaties, we'll see invasion and looting of sovereign nations, etc.

Communism was created by the capitalist elite in order to sell arms to both sides. The same is going on here. Deja vu all over again. America is 'out of control' and you other countries better arm yourselves to protect against us. What a sham. Bad theater. One star performances and a predictable story. And we won't even get Armageddon at the end. Just the threat of it, then the US will be brought down as the hero (the UN) confronts the bad guy.

If the 'international governing bodies' were serious about this stuff, GWBush would be on trial in Brussels right now for war crimes and treaty violations. Put up or shut up, Brussels.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 May 03 - 03:58 PM

Guest (whichever of multitudinous boring, trolling, moronic, anonymous guests you happen to be), you're talking utter rubbish. No wonder you won't identify yourself. Muppet.

Rap - Thanks for that. That's about what I thought. Others please note - there is a massive difference between 'subterranean' & 'ground-burst'. I should add that I was very dubious about the 'nuclear' BB remark, but felt that it was simpler to take it at face value & demolish it as was (since it was nonsense anyway), than to quibble.

BB's aren't new, boys & gals. The British used the earliest versions in WWII. Tallboy (12,000 lb) & Grand Slam (24,000lb) were the originals. The Tallboys were used against the heavily concrete reinforced U-Boat pens, the GS's (IIRC) demolished a couple of aqueducts by effectively creating localised earthquakes. No nukes involved. MOAB is not a nuke, as Rap points out. I vaguely remember reading something recently to the effect that the US is considering the use of small nukes for BB purposes. I've no recollection of anything that says they've gone into production. Donuel's allegation is still nonsensical scaremongering, even if the latter is true.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 May 03 - 04:33 PM

"Gee," he said wonderingly, "I thought that EVERYONE had a copy of "Effects of Nuclear Weapons!" How else can you authoritatively overpressures, underpressures or design your home to withstand a nuclear blast?"

Regarding subsurface blasts of any sort: the blast wave will try to compress the medium through which it travels. Water, being incompressible, is forced away from the blast site and then returns with great force -- which is why the limpet mine of WW2 could use a small amount of explosive to create a great big hole in, say, a battleship.

Earth reacts differently, depending upon what it is made up of. Rock will shatter, but if it's in a relatively immobile situation (such a being held together by tons of pressure from the surrounding earth) it will keep its shape (although I certainly wouldn't want to build a house above it -- weaken the pressure and you could fall into a big hole). If the shock wave from the blast encountered a wall with a cavity behind it (such as a concrete bunker wall surrounding a room) the wall would be collapsed. (I'm not going to detail everything that could happen, like high temperatures in an explosion turning subsurface sand to glass; you'll have to look that sort of thing up yourselves. Yes, it takes some digging, but the information is out there and no, it's not classified because if it were how could they carry on mining or road building?)

Nuclear weapons are also expensive, and not just monetarily. It makes neither political nor economic sense to use more force than you need to accomplish your goals.

Like explosives of any sort, this response is apolitical.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 May 03 - 05:02 PM

"...authoritatively discuss..." Sorry about that.

As an aside, the microcracks caused in granite quarried by dynamite or other high explosives will collect water over time, and the freeze and thaw cycle will eventually destroy your gravestone.   The microcracks don't develop if the stone is quarried with black powder or another low explosive, and your stone will last much longer.

I just thought that you all would like to know this before you go shopping for your tombstone....

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 May 03 - 07:32 PM

Excerpts from Time Magazine, May 26 edition:

"Although President Bush spends endless hours trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, his Administration isn't above creating a few itself. The Pentagon is hard at work pushing to develop the first new class of U.S. nukes since the end of the cold war.

"Two plans are on the table: retooling existing warheads into atomic sledgehammers capable of destroying bunkers under 1,000 feet of rock, and designing new mini-size nukes ideal for targeting stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons.

"Both houses (of Congress) could vote on the measure as early as this week when they take up next year's military budget.

"But the new plans have their own detractors, including nuclear scientist and Pentagon adviser Sidney Drell, who says even a tiny 1-kiloton weapon exploding 50 ft. deep in rock would spew radioactivity across a wide swath of the planet. Arms-control advocates worry that possessing smaller and more precise nuclear weapons would scuttle efforts to stop worldwide proliferation. "

Hmmmm. Nothing on whether it is permitted under existing agreements.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 May 03 - 09:18 PM

Find the entrances, close them with conventional explosives, leave the inhabitants trapped inside.

Ugly thing to do, though....

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Metchosin
Date: 25 May 03 - 03:02 AM

Nah, maybe it would take a bit longer, but not much different than what General Franks did in the first Gulf War, when he used bulldozers to smother Iraqis in their trenches. There are very few pretty ways to die in war.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 May 03 - 05:21 PM

In the second world war flamethowers were used against bunkers and tunnels. A squirt across the bunker openings and the flame sucked out all the oxygen, so those who weren't burnt alive were asphyxiated or breathed superheated air.

Nukes aren't needed for "bunker busting." Those inside are dependent upon the outside for air, water, food. All those outside have to do is outlast those inside. In previous times this was called a "siege."

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Donuel
Date: 30 May 03 - 08:27 PM

I often see people purposefully miss the point and obfuscate a side issue to deflect the main issue, but never with such an ignorant aplomb as from our resident "Gen. Slouch Armchair ret.". aka wulf.

Cudos to those that understand both the illegality and futility of the manufacture of 6,000 more nuclear bombs.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Bobert
Date: 30 May 03 - 08:59 PM

The problem with the bunker buster is that it ain't no *smart* bomb. Come to think of it, if we were to see the pictures from the Bahgdad hospitals after *smart bombs* were dropped in urban areas we'd find that there is no such thing as a *smart* bomb. Just dumb people.

Now, as fir the bunker buster, think of someplace five miles from where you are now. Now think the other direction. Now consider yourself the, ahhhh, bunker. When the Bunker buster drops on you, every living creature within that five mile radius will be *vaporized* instantly. Do you know what "vaporized" means? It means that not one fingernail will be left.

Real friggin' humane, folks. Real progress of man we got going on here.

Bunch of antiChrist Nazis as far as I can see.

For God's sake, this is the most insane weapon that has come around in almost 60 years and folks are talking about it like they would be discussing last night's Mets game.

Shame on anyone who has not at least for one damned second thought of the total inhumanity of such a weapon....

Shame on Don Runsfelf. Shame on Paul Wolowitz, Richard Pearle, Condolesa Rice. Shame on Dick Cheney. Shame on George "heathen" Bush and shame on humanity...

This is not acceptable, folks....

Not acceptable...

The sound of someone pukin' their guts up is that of Jesus Christ who is ashamed of folks who *use*, yes USE His name while merrily going about Satan's business....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 May 03 - 10:16 PM

Nukes are a weapon, nothing more. Depending on their size, they can be more or less devastating than other weapons. We have been brainwashed over the almost 58 years since their first (and last) use in war into the belief that they are the worst weapon that has ever existed and every measure must be taken to prevent their use in the future. However, the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the worst air raids that occurred during World War II in terms of casualties or the radius of destruction...look up the fire bombing of Dresden...and both biological aerosols and nerve agents have greater potential for mass casualties.

Nukes are also not illegal. As far as I know, there is no international law that forbids their possession or use. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty bans the spread of nuclear weapons, but has no impact whatever on nations who currently possess them. Also, BTW, treaties only apply to their signatories, so any "law" that did exist would have no impact on the US unless Congress (not Bush) choose to let it.

All that being said, IMHO, they should all be eliminated. They are an antique, good only for attacking area targets. The smaller weapons (and they come small enough to be fired from an artillery piece) have been superceded by better ordinance that are more accurate and have more predictable effect on a target.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 May 03 - 10:03 AM

Exactly, Art.

I know about them because they hold the same fascination to me as a snake holds for a bird it is going to eat.

I don't like 'em and I think that they should be recycled into something more useful and less harmful -- what, exactly, I'm not sure.

Nukes are weapons for the terminally stupid or the terminally suicidal.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: CarolC
Date: 31 May 03 - 10:34 AM

I'd need to do some checking up on this to be sure, but the understanding I have is that the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signatory, makes it illegal for us to use any weapons that continue to kill or do damage after the war has ended. It seems to me that nuclear weapons certainly must fall into that category.

Of course, that hasn't stopped us from using land mines, which also kill and do damaga after the war has ended, but if the issue is whether or not they are legal according to the international treaties we have signed, it would seem to me that they are not.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 May 03 - 01:42 PM

Sure, artbrooks, "just another weapon." One could take this viewpoint, I guess, and apparently the Bush Administration has.

There is a quantitative difference between a nuclear bomb and a conventional bomb. Much more bang for the taxpayers' buck.

But there is a qualitative difference as well. When a conventional bomb explodes, it does all its damage right then. The bomb per se is finished. It's done all it's going to do. But a nuclear bomb, in addition to being capable of incinerating a whole city in a matter of seconds, vaporizing combatants and civilians alike by the tens or hundreds of thousands (which should give one the creeping horrors right there), spreads radioactivity over a wide area and lofts radioactive contamination into the upper atmosphere to spread over the rest of the planet (when you're talking nuclear, there is no such thing as a "clean bomb"). It goes right on for decades, indiscriminately killing and maiming with cancer and leukemia, and causing genetic damage that will affect future for generations with stillbirths, deformaties, and mutations.

An all-out nuclear war--which could be triggered by the first use of a nuclear weapon--could turn the earth into a lifeless ball of glowing, radioactive slag.

"Just another weapon?"

Well . . . I suppose one could say that.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: artbrooks
Date: 31 May 03 - 03:10 PM

Don Firth: your information, while certainly accurate for the Hiroshima generation of weapon, does not fit at all with what I learned in nuclear weapons school. There are "conventional" bombs that have much more explosive power than a tactical nuclear weapon (although much less than the strategic ones loaded into ICBMs). There are, BTW, still areas in France that are contaminated with the residue of chemical weapons from 1915!

CarolC: the US has not signed the land mines treaty, therefore it has no effect on us. Whether that is a good thing or not is another discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 May 03 - 03:47 PM

"There are, BTW, still areas in France that are contaminated with the residue of chemical weapons from 1915!"

Clouds of gas hung in low areas in France for years after the end of World War I. Okay. But I fail to see how this makes spreading the radioactive residue of nuclear bombs okay--even if they are lower yield than some conventional bombs. And I reiterate that the first use of nuclear weapons of any size could very well be the popping cork that lets the genie out of the bottle. If you drop the Marquess of Queensberry rules and start kicking and gouging, it's tacit approval for others to do the same thing. And, believe me, there are those who will if they possibly can. Then you may see the spectacle of real escalation, from minus 5 kiloton tactical weapons to the 5 to 20 megaton city-incinerating hydrogen bombs. And the U. S. is not the only country that has them.

I don't think I want to see anyone pull the cork on that particular bottle, even if it's us.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: CarolC
Date: 31 May 03 - 03:48 PM

I know, artbrooks. But an argument could probably be made that they are covered by the Geneva Convention. Although I think it's probably safe to assume that the US won't be acknowleging that any time soon.

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: CarolC
Date: 31 May 03 - 03:52 PM

There are, BTW, still areas in France that are contaminated with the residue of chemical weapons from 1915!

And is this not one of the reasons that chemical weapons have been pretty universally banned?

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: artbrooks
Date: 31 May 03 - 04:10 PM

Yes

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: CarolC
Date: 31 May 03 - 04:51 PM

;-)

Yes it it not?

Subject: RE: BS: The truth about nuclear bunker busters
From: Gareth
Date: 31 May 03 - 08:01 PM

Try Wilfed Owen - Ooops Sorry Carol bit to intelligent for you !

Gareth