Any scientific folks that can explain 'bunker buster' technology?

[enid602]

Since management appears to be poised to use such 'bunker bustin'' bombs in Iran in the near future (perhaps as early as 6/6/(0)6), it would be nice if people in the know would explain to us just exactly what our hard-earned tax dollars are being used for. Do bunker busters form a mushroom cloud? Do they affect cities and villages several miles away? How powerful are they vis-a-vis, say Hiroshima?

[marmar]

1. Check the animated graphic on the home page...

It's a very good intro for the uninitiated.

[enid602]

11. Thank you

Boy, that is grim. Especially the map that showed different levels of fallout, and their effects on India, Afganistan, Pakistan, etc.

If I were the recipient of such bombings, I would not hesitate to use traditional nuclear bombs if they were available to me. I fear that use of these bunker busters provides a bridge to traditional nuclear warfare. Scary.

[sui generis]

2. pretty much this says it all

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

It was actually discussed in scientific american (I believe) over a year ago.

There are several proposed strategies, including shockwave and staged depleted uranium combinations; all of them are disasterous and ineffective.

[marmar]

3. Nevermind, it's not there anymore!

:hide:

[pk_du]

7. See post #6 n/t

[datadiva]

4. I don't know if what you are looking for is

explained by the video, but on DU homepage, 4th article down is an animation of what a bunker buster does. Scared me. :scared: :nuke:

[TexasLawyer]

21. Here is the thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x896881

[Speck Tater]

5. They have a very heavy, tough casing to penetrate...

...deep into the earth before detonation. Yeild is small, but fallout and radiactive dust is certainly an issue. They are something you don't want set off within a few hundred miles of where you live.

[MercutioATC]

14. "Bunker Buster" is NOT synonymous with "Nuclear Weapon"

Yes, there are tactical nukes that can be used as bunker busters, but there is also plenty of conventional bunker-busting ordnance. Unless "nuclear" is specifically referred to, we're talking about conventional weapons.

[Imperialism Inc.]

15. I'm pretty sure this question is in response to the Hersh article

that discussed the possibility of using nuclear bunker busters. Thus the assumption I think.

[MercutioATC]

16. Understood, but some people think all bunker busters are nuclear.

I just wanted to clear up the issue.

:)

[benburch]

24. Oh, I know better.

One of the upgrades to the JDAM is a penetrator.

[pk_du]

6. Here

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

[benburch]

8. Essentially, an earth penetrator.

The concept is that a warhead with a very solid nose is boosted into the earth by a rocket motor and of course gravity. When it has penetrated as far as it will go, the warhead detonates and pulverizes all of the material around it for a considerable distance. The overpressure created is enough to pancake any void spaces like caverns, mines, or bunkers even below the level of actual pulverization. The weight of the earth the warhead has penetrated "tamps" the explosion and makes sure all of its energy goes into the surrounding earth.

Contrast to a warhead on the surface. Most of its blast effect will go up and out, and a crater is formed that is fairly shallow given the size of the bomb. If a strong bunker exists below the level at which the earth is pulverized, it likely can resist the effects of the reduced overpressire.

[longship]

9. The trade-off

One can make a weapon that has good penatrating capability and make is fairly small yield, or make it less pentrating and large yield.

According to reports, unfortunately, the ability to penatrate is not good, so any bunker buster used by the US is going to also be a "city buster", on the order of 1 MTn yield. Even then, the destruction of the target depends on a variety of parameters. So basically, the use of the BB will in effect wipe out any civilization within 50 km or so and likely will do nothing to any deeply placed target.

Tell that to ChimpCo! It likely won't make any difference.

[benburch]

10. Is that what we are doing?

Sheesh. The Bomb Guys I used to know when I was in High Energy Physics thought they had the penetrator thing down cold.

So... Ignore what I wrote above, that is obviously not what we are planning. :(

[longship]

13. A prescient vision from Randy Newman, 1972

Political Science
by Randy Newman
(from his "Sail Away" album)

No one likes us-I don't know why.
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try.
But all around, even our old friends put us down.
Let's drop the big one and see what happens.

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful.
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them.
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old;
Africa is far too hot;
And Canada's too cold.
And South America stole our name.
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia.
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo.
We'll build an All American amusement park there.
They got surfin', too.

Boom goes London and boom Paris.
More room for you and more room for me.
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town.
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free.
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me.

They all hate us anyhow.
So let's drop the big one now.
Let's drop the big one now.

[paparush]

12. There's this here bunker ..see, and it needs to be busted, see...

'kus it is an insult to our Freedom*, and the Unitary Savior from Texas/Conneticut has divine clarity that the Shah Guy shouldn't have no nukular weapons.

[oneighty]

17. Gravity bombs

after entering the earth are know to follow the path of least resistance. Often unexploded bombs will be found a considerable distance laterally from the point of impact. It is even possible that bombs might 'Skip' up out of the ground and come to rest on the surface.

180

[benburch]

18. Right.

That is why the penetrators I was discussing use rockets. But it would appear we have abandoned that approach. Probably didn't do enough collateral damage for Bush, who gets a huge erection when he hears of dead women and children.

[oneighty]

19. Even a rocket propelled

penetrator upon meeting a solid object could veer off course prior to meeting the desired depth. Or if it penetrated at any angle less than vertical it might change course.

Just speculating of course.

180

[benburch]

20. Yes of course you are correct.

Just MUCH less likely because of the greater kinetic energy involved. And their guidance systems are *supposed* to assure a perfect angle of entry, but in warfare, your plans are the last thing to happen.

[oneighty]

22. That is why.

The military has EOD because even the best of explosive ordnance schemes have failure rates.

180

[benburch]

23. I'd rather not be on a nuclear EOD team!

:nuke:

[originalpckelly]

25. It would probably cause radiation for a small area, but wouldn't go off

Nuclear weapons require precise explosions to attain the critical mass needed for a run away nuclear chain reaction. They basically implode on themselves. If you blow a nuke up it still causes radiation to be released, but it is not a big nuclear explosion.

[Neil Lisst]

26. Here's the alleged problem with today's bunker busters ...

They're only good for 50 feet, and it's said the Iranians have the facilities buried 75 feet, hence the alleged need for tactical nukes to reach them.