NationStates Jolt Archive

Months ago I heard talk of the proposed development of a small nuclear weapon designed to penetrate underground before detonating. The purpose was to destroy deep underground bunkers, like those used by N. Korea for weapons storage.

Upon doing some research into the subject I learned that it's just about impossible to build a bomb capable of penetrating to a depth that will contain the explosion underground and not scatter radioactive isotopes in the area of the impact. Also I learned that the radiation level near where the bomb penetrated is likely to be quite high because fallout isn't dispersed through the atmosphere by the blast, but concentrated in the rubble and dust ejected from the bomb crater.

It would be an undeniably usefull weapon, but it will severely contaminate the land around the point of impact.

My question is this. Do you think the benefits of such a weapon outweigh the potential damage it's radiation will do?

Months ago I heard talk of the proposed development of a small nuclear weapon designed to penetrate underground before detonating. The purpose was to destroy deep underground bunkers, like those used by N. Korea for weapons storage.

Upon doing some research into the subject I learned that it's just about impossible to build a bomb capable of penetrating to a depth that will contain the explosion underground and not scatter radioactive isotopes in the area of the impact. Also I learned that the radiation level near where the bomb penetrated is likely to be quite high because fallout isn't dispersed through the atmosphere by the blast, but concentrated in the rubble and dust ejected from the bomb crater.

It would be an undeniably usefull weapon, but it will severely contaminate the land around the point of impact.

My question is this. Do you think the benefits of such a weapon outweigh the potential damage it's radiation will do?
NO! :(

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deletedIt would be an undeniably usefull weapon, but it will severely contaminate the land around the point of impact.

My question is this. Do you think the benefits of such a weapon outweigh the potential damage it's radiation will do?[/QUOTE]

Depends on where the bunker is located (city, country, etc.), what is contained in the bunker, and the probability of destroying what is in the bunker. Sounds like the contaminated area would be limited to a relatively small area.

My question is this. Do you think the benefits of such a weapon outweigh the potential damage it's radiation will do?
no. ban the bomb!


you should add a poll DC

Depends on where the bunker is located (city, country, etc.), what is contained in the bunker, and the probability of destroying what is in the bunker. Sounds like the contaminated area would be limited to a relatively small area.
Wind blown dust from the explosion could drift for a few miles and seriously contaminate farmland or cities. I guess it would be acceptable if the target was dangerous enough and isolated enough.

Assuming it doesn't manage to get washed into the local water supply or picked up by the seasonal winds that is.

Besides, piss and moan about its usefullness as you like, the moment you detonate a nuclear warhead anywhere, tactical or not, you can bet your last dollar that the rest of the world will follow suit for their own conflicts.

Assuming it doesn't manage to get washed into the local water supply or picked up by the seasonal winds that is.

Besides, piss and moan about its usefullness as you like, the moment you detonate a nuclear warhead anywhere, tactical or not, you can bet your last dollar that the rest of the world will follow suit for their own conflicts.
1 Good point about environmental impact.

2 That may well be true. It's a good argument for stoping nuclear proliferation. A nuclear "bunker-buster" would likely only be used if a dangerous regime had a bunker full of nuclear or strategic biological weapons. Better to eliminate the need for such a weapon than just eliminate the weapon itself.

Whether the weapon is useful depends on the situation. Is it good to have? Yeah just incase its always good to have a weapon. If it should be used depends all on the situation, if its destroying unarmed nukes then yeah use it, if its destroying rifles and ammo, maybe a couple of land mines and stuff then i think it would be easier to use a more enhanced bunker buster.

Months ago I heard talk of the proposed development of a small nuclear weapon designed to penetrate underground before detonating. The purpose was to destroy deep underground bunkers, like those used by N. Korea for weapons storage.

Upon doing some research into the subject I learned that it's just about impossible to build a bomb capable of penetrating to a depth that will contain the explosion underground and not scatter radioactive isotopes in the area of the impact. Also I learned that the radiation level near where the bomb penetrated is likely to be quite high because fallout isn't dispersed through the atmosphere by the blast, but concentrated in the rubble and dust ejected from the bomb crater.

It would be an undeniably usefull weapon, but it will severely contaminate the land around the point of impact.

My question is this. Do you think the benefits of such a weapon outweigh the potential damage it's radiation will do?
lol..I was gonna make this thread yesterday, but decided not to. It wouldn't be that effective, because from what I've read/seen, it couldn't penetrate deeply enough into the ground for even the shockwaves to effectively affect deep bunkers (and most are buried rather deep, for good reason). Using a nuke for one of these that won't bury itself deep enough into the earth to contain the radiation is just assinine and overkill.

lol..I was gonna make this thread yesterday, but decided not to. It wouldn't be that effective, because from what I've read/seen, it couldn't penetrate deeply enough into the ground for even the shockwaves to effectively affect deep bunkers (and most are buried rather deep, for good reason). Using a nuke for one of these that won't bury itself deep enough into the earth to contain the radiation is just assinine and overkill.
Depends how deep the bunker is buried. Setting off an explosive of any kind underground as opposed to on the surface greatly increases it's ability to destroy underground bunkers. Certainly there exist bunkers buried deep enough to resist a bunker-buster nuke, but there are many more that aren't that deep.

Building new nukes is beyond insane!

How can the US possibly ever demand other countries stop developing nukes (Iran, NK) while the US, which already has thousands is dreaming up all kinds of new nukes? This stuff pisses me off so much, it is only a matter of time before some major city ends up being vaporized, unless that is we start seriously moving towards abolishing these weapons and then waging relentless war on any country which tries to redevelop them.

Depends how deep the bunker is buried. Setting off an explosive of any kind underground as opposed to on the surface greatly increases it's ability to destroy underground bunkers. Certainly there exist bunkers buried deep enough to resist a bunker-buster nuke, but there are many more that aren't that deep.
maybe we should stop dremaing up new ways to disperse radioactive isotopes and develop a bomb that can drill into the earth, why not? Sounds like fun

Depends upon what the bomb would be used to destroy. Let's say that N. Korea starts pumping vast amounts of an airborne ebola mutation out of a lab and threatens to unleash it if there is a war.

A conventional bunker buster might not do the job, and might in fact spread the diesease to the surrounding area where it would spread like wildfire. But a nuke being the bitchy little fireball o' death that it is would destroy the virus. It's a risk I'd be willing to take to use the nuke against that.

But on the other hand, I'd oppose using it against a deeply dug in dictator. I'd just say use a conventional bunker buster and trap him down there.

Building new nukes is beyond insane!

How can the US possibly ever demand other countries stop developing nukes (Iran, NK) while the US, which already has thousands is dreaming up all kinds of new nukes? This stuff pisses me off so much, it is only a matter of time before some major city ends up being vaporized, unless that is we start seriously moving towards abolishing these weapons and then waging relentless war on any country which tries to redevelop them.
Yes but you have to look at the root causes of US nuclear development. It's not because the US just wants more warheads, we have enough. It's because unstable and dangerous nations are developing nuclear weapons and might be hiding them in deep bunkers. You want to see the US stop making nukes? Stop the crazy little dictators and terrorist sponsors from making them.

A conventional bunker buster might not do the job, and might in fact spread the diesease to the surrounding area where it would spread like wildfire. But a nuke being the bitchy little fireball o' death that it is would destroy the virus. It's a risk I'd be willing to take to use the nuke against that.
so concentrated radioactivity is safer?

lol..I was gonna make this thread yesterday, but decided not to. It wouldn't be that effective, because from what I've read/seen, it couldn't penetrate deeply enough into the ground for even the shockwaves to effectively affect deep bunkers (and most are buried rather deep, for good reason). Using a nuke for one of these that won't bury itself deep enough into the earth to contain the radiation is just assinine and overkill.

http://www.metacafe.com/item25094/s298920/5/bunker_buster

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/bunkerbuster.html

Yes but you have to look at the root causes of US nuclear development. It's not because the US just wants more warheads, we have enough. It's because unstable and dangerous nations are developing nuclear weapons and might be hiding them in deep bunkers. You want to see the US stop making nukes? Stop the crazy little dictators and terrorist sponsors from making them.

Well even so these crazy little dictators can only at best mount them on rickety old second hand scuds purchased from Mikhail Gorbarchev. I think it is also unlikely that these crazy dictators will stop trying to get nukes as long as we bomb the living shit out of countries which don't have nukes (Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq) while the US grovels and whines at diplomatic conferences when dealing with countries that have them or are near having them and begs them to throw away their nasty weapons. (Iran, North Korea, Pakistan etc).

Lastly I think it naive to ever think the US would ever give up even a substantial number of its nukes. After the cold war ended we probably could have gotten together with China and Russia, and maybe even pressured Israel into getting rid of their nukes to protect the world's future generations from nuclear anhilation but we never took that opportunity.

how long must the insignificant (yes ie not white,european decent etc) masses suffer and die in far flung countries while govts spend up on bomb development
shame on you and your ignorant govt
i hope you cower in fear as china and india become world powers in the decade to come

unless they too are suddenly full of terrorists...
sleep well

Well even so these crazy little dictators can only at best mount them on rickety old second hand scuds purchased from Mikhail Gorbarchev. I think it is also unlikely that these crazy dictators will stop trying to get nukes as long as we bomb the living shit out of countries which don't have nukes (Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq) while the US grovels and whines at diplomatic conferences when dealing with countries that have them or are near having them and begs them to throw away their nasty weapons. (Iran, North Korea, Pakistan etc).

Lastly I think it naive to ever think the US would ever give up even a substantial number of its nukes. After the cold war ended we probably could have gotten together with China and Russia, and maybe even pressured Israel into getting rid of their nukes to protect the world's future generations from nuclear anhilation but we never took that opportunity.
1 Becoming a nuclear power isn't an overnight thing. Now they can barely mount them on Scuds, In a few months to a year maybe they'll be able to mount them on ICBMs.

2 Serbia was massacring Bosnian Muslims. I don't know about you, but in my eyes bombing the serbs was justified. A bombing campaign is more acceptable than a genocide. Also, are you really saying that we're in the wrong for having attacked Afghanistan? They aided and protected an organization that had launched numerous attacks against the USA and other western nations.

3 The more nations that have nuclear weapons, the more likely that nuclear weapons will be used. Of course we will try to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. When your grandkids are born without extra limbs you can thank us.

4 Giving up our nukes isn't the issue. We won't need to develop new kinds of nukes if dictators and terrorist states don't pursue WMD programs. This is about stopping the construction of new nukes, not eliminating the ones that exist. You've got to take things one step at a time.

how long must the insignificant (yes ie not white,european decent etc) masses suffer and die in far flung countries while govts spend up on bomb development
shame on you and your ignorant govt
i hope you cower in fear as china and india become world powers in the decade to come

unless they too are suddenly full of terrorists...
sleep well
The US provides alot of aid to developing countries. It's the biggest donor to the effort to stop HIV in Africa. Building weapons doesn't stop us from granting aid.

We won't be cowering in fear, pal. India's our friend, China's our trading partner.

I think in some circumstances if the only way to destroy a particular bunker of importance(ie: Kim Jong Il is in it) then I would say the rewards outweigh the risks. But the stigma of it being a nuclear weapon will always hang on the US for using it.

I think in some circumstances if the only way to destroy a particular bunker of importance(ie: Kim Jong Il is in it) then I would say the rewards outweigh the risks. But the stigma of it being a nuclear weapon will always hang on the US for using it.
The US already deals daily with the stigma of using atomic weapons. We're the only nation on earth (currently) that has used them in anger.

To: Ihatevacations- concentrated radioactive waste is a bit easier to clean up than dispersed. If the aftermath of a bunker buster only contaminates a few acres, it can be contained with far more efficiency than an airburst or near-surface burst, that kicks radioactives up into the upper atmosphere for worldwide sharing.

Of course, the bulldozers and dump-trucks would have to be smelted down and processed as toxic waste themselves, but it's much cleaner than trying to decontaminate the jetstream.

sleep well
nighty night

The US already deals daily with the stigma of using atomic weapons. We're the only nation on earth (currently) that has used them in anger.

To: Ihatevacations- concentrated radioactive waste is a bit easier to clean up than dispersed. If the aftermath of a bunker buster only contaminates a few acres, it can be contained with far more efficiency than an airburst or near-surface burst, that kicks radioactives up into the upper atmosphere for worldwide sharing.

Of course, the bulldozers and dump-trucks would have to be smelted down and processed as toxic waste themselves, but it's much cleaner than trying to decontaminate the jetstream.
It takes 15-37 years to the half-life of the radioaktive isotopes to be so low any human can go there and clean upp the mess. Look only on chenobyl. Coventional weapons are more efficience then a nucler bunker buster, they are cheaper, cleaner, more easy to care, is´n easy to make any faults, and the is more "stable" then a nucler weapon..

Meh. In a nuclear war, I suppose anything goes and no matter what happens there will be severe consequences. Might as well accomplish what you need to do rather than hold back and face the same amount of backlash.

I say we should just set off nukes in every country, and than there will be no need for America to make any more of them, because the whole world will be destroyed!

Ihatevacations']so concentrated radioactivity is safer?
Concentrated radioactive will not spread out like a massive plague, potentially killing hundreds of thousands of people. It's an extreme circumstance, I know, but when faced with a choice between two evils...

Months ago I heard talk of the proposed development of a small nuclear weapon designed to penetrate underground before detonating. The purpose was to destroy deep underground bunkers, like those used by N. Korea for weapons storage.

Upon doing some research into the subject I learned that it's just about impossible to build a bomb capable of penetrating to a depth that will contain the explosion underground and not scatter radioactive isotopes in the area of the impact. Also I learned that the radiation level near where the bomb penetrated is likely to be quite high because fallout isn't dispersed through the atmosphere by the blast, but concentrated in the rubble and dust ejected from the bomb crater.

It would be an undeniably usefull weapon, but it will severely contaminate the land around the point of impact.

My question is this. Do you think the benefits of such a weapon outweigh the potential damage it's radiation will do?
It's a first strike type of weapon. If you're using it you've already resigned yourself to fighting World War III and trying to win. Considering the inevitability of nuclear proliferation, I think the answer has to to be yes. The damage it does has to be weighed against the damage it might prevent. The economic cost of such an endeavor being effectively infinite, anything that falls significantly short of that is a good idea. But the fact that it makes a first strike scenerio, and the prospect of winning some version of WWIII viable, is a threat to the current status quo.

The usefullness is debatable because one can always build (if not always deliver) a bigger bomb, and one can always dig and reinforce a deeper hole.

Building new nukes is beyond insane!

How can the US possibly ever demand other countries stop developing nukes (Iran, NK) while the US, which already has thousands is dreaming up all kinds of new nukes? This stuff pisses me off so much, it is only a matter of time before some major city ends up being vaporized, unless that is we start seriously moving towards abolishing these weapons and then waging relentless war on any country which tries to redevelop them.
The warheads that would make it into nuclear bunker busters wouldn't be new. They'd be old and put into new and improved ground penetrating bodies.

Well even so these crazy little dictators can only at best mount them on rickety old second hand scuds purchased from Mikhail Gorbarchev. I think it is also unlikely that these crazy dictators will stop trying to get nukes as long as we bomb the living shit out of countries which don't have nukes (Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq) while the US grovels and whines at diplomatic conferences when dealing with countries that have them or are near having them and begs them to throw away their nasty weapons. (Iran, North Korea, Pakistan etc).

Lastly I think it naive to ever think the US would ever give up even a substantial number of its nukes. After the cold war ended we probably could have gotten together with China and Russia, and maybe even pressured Israel into getting rid of their nukes to protect the world's future generations from nuclear anhilation but we never took that opportunity.
North Korea has a missile capable of hitting targets in Japan and possibly California with accuracy. They also have a history of selling missiles and missile technology indiscriminatly. Sorry to burst your bubble.

North Korea has large numbers of artillery tubes aimed at Seoul and military emplacements in South Korea. Other than localized radiation issues what difference is there between the power of this much artillery and "micro" and "mini" nuclear weapons?

"More worrisome are the DPRK's estimated 12,000 artillery tubes and 2,300 multiple rocket launchers that, from their current emplacements, are capable of raining 500,000 shells per hour on U.S. and South Korean troops. 500 long-range artillery pieces are able to target Seoul, a mere 40 kilometers from the DMZ."

http://www.nautilus.org/DPRKBriefingBook/nuclearweapons/StillValid.html

I think one reason we're seeing the 'bunker buster' publically is because our military doctrine, particulary our Korean doctrine, has been adapted to include using of small nukes. We will most likely need them if DNKR invades the South, or if first-strike is needed against a nuclear-armed North.

http://www.metacafe.com/item25094/s298920/5/bunker_buster

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/bunkerbuster.html
Eut, that was fricken sweet. We can always count on you for cool videos of stuff blowing up. :D

http://www.metacafe.com/item25094/s298920/5/bunker_buster

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/bunkerbuster.html
Hella cool.

Months ago I heard talk of the proposed development of a small nuclear weapon designed to penetrate underground before detonating. The purpose was to destroy deep underground bunkers, like those used by N. Korea for weapons storage.

Upon doing some research into the subject I learned that it's just about impossible to build a bomb capable of penetrating to a depth that will contain the explosion underground and not scatter radioactive isotopes in the area of the impact. Also I learned that the radiation level near where the bomb penetrated is likely to be quite high because fallout isn't dispersed through the atmosphere by the blast, but concentrated in the rubble and dust ejected from the bomb crater.

It would be an undeniably usefull weapon, but it will severely contaminate the land around the point of impact.

My question is this. Do you think the benefits of such a weapon outweigh the potential damage it's radiation will do?
Maybe this new tech can be used destroy Russian or Chinese Silos too.

hum?

A nuke is a nuke is a nuke. And as such one shouldn't be developing it, while at the same time preaching to Iran and the DPRK that they shouldn't have them.
That's just not good for your credibility.

3 The more nations that have nuclear weapons, the more likely that nuclear weapons will be used. Of course we will try to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. When your grandkids are born without extra limbs you can thank us.


This point only works if fission/fusion weapons make their way into stateless organizations. If they stay as weapons owned and maintained by a nation, it will remain unused by the priniciple of MAD. Imagine if Iran, Syria and the rest of Israel's neighbors had nuclear weapons. Would they use it against Israel? I find that unlikely due to the fact that Israel can retaliate in kind, wiping out large chunks of their population in the process.

Likewise, Israel would be considerably more cautious in their actions against their neighbors because they don't want to spark off a nuclear exchange.

Imagine if Iran, Syria and the rest of Israel's neighbors had nuclear weapons. Would they use it against Israel? I find that unlikely due to the fact that Israel can retaliate in kind, wiping out large chunks of their population in the process.

Likewise, Israel would be considerably more cautious in their actions against their neighbors because they don't want to spark off a nuclear exchange.you do have a point...

Not at all, but the Bush administration thinks so and wanted to use them in Afghanistan and Iraq.