Atomic Bunker busters

I was reading an old Popular Science article about ussing a mini-nuke to get deep targets buried undergbround like Osama bin laden. After doing some research I have wondered that instead of developing "mini-nukes" why not use "mini-neutron bombs? Now before many dismiss it as not much of a difference consider this:

1) Neutron bomb leaves lethal radiation for a shorter amount of time, like only a couple of days
2) Mini-nukes kill by explodding and causing massive cave ins around an area, the radiation of a neutron bomb would mean that a much larger area could be covered
3) The neutron radiation can go through almost any tiype of material, so even if well structured the occupants would die
4) Besides an entrycavity and a small explosion, the bomb does little physical damage.

So I think that a mini neutron bunker busting bomb is a much better idea to a mini-nulke (well actually they are the same, but the neutron bomb is a form of atomic bomb. Besides you can understand the concept)

Nuetron bombs are not effective against underground targets. The reason nuetron enhanced atomic weapons are effective is that a nuetron is only stopped effectively by objects containing lots of hyrdogen (protons). This means that the radiation will penetrate steel and stop in flesh. However, most hardened, underground structures have thick concrete walls. Concrete has a large amount of hyrdrogen in it (from the water that cured into it) - making it effective at stopping nuetrons. Not to mention in many places there is a lot of moisture in the ground to start with.

Edit: There is no need to quote the entire post when it is directly above yours.


[edit on 21-4-2005 by Seekerof]

The "mini-nukes" destroy under-ground bunkers by the shockwave that they create when they explode under the surface. A neutron nuke would only be affective if its yield is more than the mini-nuke or else the shockwave will be the same or weaker.

The whole concept of neutron bombs is to be able to decimate a large population without damaging the infrastructure that supports it.

When people create underground bunkers, it's usually to hide command and control centers, WMD labs, etc. Our objective is to totally destroy whatever is in the bunker, not just kill the people inside it. Another reason to destroy a bunker is to deny the enemy it's use as protection in the future.

Mini-nukes are being researched because there is a limit to the distance that conventional ordinance can penetrate into the earth. More and more nations are designing bunkers that are deeper and stronger than ever before. We can't penetrate 100 feet of rock, steel, and concrete with conventional weapons, but a small nuke that projected it's blast downward could.

They're trying to create weapons that have a tremendous blast, but yeild very little to no radiation. The idea is to destroy the bunker, not kill everything living in a ten mile radius.

Ok I'm no physicist so I have a question. Does a material's half-life effect the time the radiation lasts or just how long the material spits out radiation. If it does than why not use a nuke with a short half life? More powerful in the short run yet the long term effects would be limited.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Ok I'm no physicist so I have a question. Does a material's half-life effect the time the radiation lasts or just how long the material spits out radiation. If it does than why not use a nuke with a short half life? More powerful in the short run yet the long term effects would be limited.

Half-life is the amount of time it takes for half of that material to decay into something else. The longer the half-life, the less radioactive that material is. In a physics world Uranium 238, with a half life of a few billion years, is considered basically stable.

That said, the material used in a nuclear weapon has to be fissile - able to split into two under certain circumstances - which basically limits the choices to a few different elements. However, once detonated the vast majority of the byproducts have a VERY short half life. You could go the Nevada test site where thousands of nukes have been detonated and there will be virtually no increased radiation - this is because all of the byproducts have a very short half life and have in fact disapeared by now.

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
More and more nations are designing bunkers that are deeper and stronger than ever before. We can't penetrate 100 feet of rock, steel, and concrete with conventional weapons, but a small nuke that projected it's blast downward could.

Well the penetration of 100ft is only achievable through soil; the penetration through rock and concrete is far far less, more like 30 ft.

Yes in solid rock even these Bunker-Busting nukes will only penetrate about 15m, but its the shockwave they create which destroys the structure within.

I know this is totally off subject but ive got something to say about your signature.

Bush 4 ever! Iraq war is justified. Clinton b bad

Yes the war is justified and yes Bush 4eva, But why is Clinton bad???

Originally posted by MickeyDee
I know this is totally off subject but ive got something to say about your signature.

Bush 4 ever! Iraq war is justified. Clinton b bad

Yes the war is justified and yes Bush 4eva, But why is Clinton bad???

I want to reply to that soooo bad, but I won't because it's off topic, in the wrong forum, and will surely get me into a flame war. Pose that question in the political forum and I'll let you know...

Well I got not problem responding
Clinton just killed our military armed forces in terms of money and tech plus he never let them do anything we get attacked he does noting. Not to mention he also gave away secret tech.

Ok, that was off topic but I had to answer it. I don't want to argue with anyone over it because it would just start another fight.

i idea of a `bunker nusting nuke` is really a misnomer - as even down to depths of 600 feet the fireball will breach the surface , thus spilling thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive material everywhere.

Harlequin, the Bunker-Busting Nuke actually does what its name says it destroys the bunker, its main objective is to destroy the bunker or structure, radiation containment is not its main objective.
And we are in the 5kt or less yield so there will be some radiation but there's noting we can do about it.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Harlequin, the Bunker-Busting Nuke actually does what its name says it destroys the bunker, its main objective is to destroy the bunker or structure, radiation containment is not its main objective.
And we are in the 5kt or less yield so there will be some radiation but there's noting we can do about it.

The fallout from a 5kt ground would contaminate the area for many years afterwards - parts of new mexico are still active 60 years after trinity!

so , say you deploy the weapon and use it - who goes to check whether the target has been disabled / destroyed? PBI`s? fat chance you`ll get anyone who will go near a hot zone for at least a month afterwards!

Originally posted by Harlequin
so , say you deploy the weapon and use it - who goes to check whether the target has been disabled / destroyed? PBI`s? fat chance you`ll get anyone who will go near a hot zone for at least a month afterwards!

I'm guessing that is where satellites come in to play

Originally posted by Harlequin

The fallout from a 5kt ground would contaminate the area for many years afterwards - parts of new mexico are still active 60 years after trinity!

I don't which part of New Mexico you're talking about, but I do know for a fact that you ( well if you had permission ) can walk on the exact spot where the Trinity device was detonated. There maybe some lingering radiation but nothing harmful. Just look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki today.

A 5kt bunker buster would probably cause more fallout as ( obviously ) it's going to throw up a huge cloud of radiactive debris.

the green glass from the trinity site is 100x background (if not higher) , and the site itself is fenced off ; so getting there is somewhat difficult.

i`ll try and find the aerial photo after trinity - which was a 21kt shot , and you tell me what you can see other than alot of black

Originally posted by Harlequin
the green glass from the trinity site is 100x background (if not higher)

Here's some facts to clear up your flawed knowlege

Radiation levels in the fenced, ground zero area are low. On an average the levels are only 10 times greater than the region's natural background radiation. A one-hour visit to the inner fenced area will result in a whole body exposure of one-half to one milliroentgen (mrem).

and the site itself is fenced off ; so getting there is somewhat difficult.

The 51,500-acre area was declared a national historic landmark in 1975. The landmark includes base camp, where the scientists and support group lived; ground zero, where the bomb was placed for the explosion; and the McDonald ranch house, where the plutonium core to the bomb was assembled. Visitors to a Trinity Site Open House see ground zero and the McDonald ranch house. In addition, one of the old instrumentation bunkers is visible beside the readjust west of ground zero.

Link for both quotes - ed-thelen.org...

so , say you deploy the weapon and use it - who goes to check whether the target has been disabled / destroyed? PBI`s? fat chance you`ll get anyone who will go near a hot zone for at least a month afterwards!

Like someone said, Satellites and UAV’s.




West Point, out.


[edit on 25-4-2005 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Harlequin
the green glass from the trinity site is 100x background (if not higher)

Here's some facts to clear up your flawed knowlege

Radiation levels in the fenced, ground zero area are low. On an average the levels are only 10 times greater than the region's natural background radiation. A one-hour visit to the inner fenced area will result in a whole body exposure of one-half to one milliroentgen (mrem).

and the site itself is fenced off ; so getting there is somewhat difficult.

The 51,500-acre area was declared a national historic landmark in 1975. The landmark includes base camp, where the scientists and support group lived; ground zero, where the bomb was placed for the explosion; and the McDonald ranch house, where the plutonium core to the bomb was assembled. Visitors to a Trinity Site Open House see ground zero and the McDonald ranch house. In addition, one of the old instrumentation bunkers is visible beside the readjust west of ground zero.

Link for both quotes - ed-thelen.org...

heres some more facts to replace your flawed knowledge (and why ypour so rude i`ll never know)

www.randomuseless.info...]Trinity site





relative radiation levels on the site , the highest levels are where tinitite is still found - and around 430 mrem

wetpoint - at 1m resolution you`ll see a crater - you need 30cm or lower resolution to be able to see more than a black hole.