PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear Earth Penetrator to be used against N. Korea


peter2002
Mar 8, 2003, 01:27 PM
The Pentagon is preparing to take the first public step toward obtaining a controversial, high-yield, earth-penetrating nuclear weapon that could be aimed at North Korea's underground nuclear- and missile-production facilities, according to senior Bush administration officials.

Within one week, an Air Force report is to be delivered to the House and Senate Armed Services committees stating the military requirements for the "robust nuclear earth penetrator," a device designed to dig into the ground before it explodes and crushes any facility buried beneath it.

The bomb, already five times more powerful than the device detonated at Hiroshima, would have an even greater impact because a nuclear weapon's force is multiplied when its shock wave penetrates the earth's crust.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134648773_nuke08.html
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

In a related story, N. Korea says they will torch New York City, Washington D.C. and Chicago.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826533281.html

Listen to N. Korean nuke threats here: http://www.abc.net.au/am/2003/03/08/20030308am07.asx

Megaquad
Mar 8, 2003, 01:45 PM
OMG! :eek:
he really is crazy!

macfan
Mar 8, 2003, 01:59 PM
Funny how the story says that a weapon could be used against North Korea, but for peter"chicken little"2002, there are immediate plans for a "Nuclear Earth Penetrator to be used against N. Korea."

peter2002
Mar 8, 2003, 02:03 PM
could be...

That is just slang for "will be" and "very soon". Didn't your English teacher teach you to read between the lines?

Pete

macfan
Mar 8, 2003, 02:14 PM
peter2002,
Didn't your English teacher teach you to read between the lines?

Didn't your psychology teacher teach you not to be paranoid? ;)

kettle
Mar 8, 2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Megaquad
OMG! :eek:
he really is crazy!

As if "he" has anything to do with it. The world really isn't as straight forward as one "crazy" man.

kettle
Mar 8, 2003, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by macfan
peter2002,


Didn't your psychology teacher teach you not to be paranoid? ;)

No, not me, but they did teach me that - just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean "They're" not after me.:confused:

Mr. Anderson
Mar 8, 2003, 04:44 PM
Bunker Busters aren't anything new, really. But it is a sad state that the AirForce is going before Congress with this technology.

All it will do is further escalate the issue - think what the N. Korean's or even Sadam must be thinking.

And I'd have to say that a conventional bunker buster could easily be retrofitted for nukes. Which means these could be used soon.

D

DarkNovaMatter
Mar 8, 2003, 06:18 PM
Ugh this isn't good- There was an article in a popular science magazine awhile back. Well the thing is that a nuclear bunker buster would have to be 1/10 of the power of the Hiroshima bomb because the bomb can't go deep enough- simply its structual integrity would degrade too fast. This 1/10 nuclear bomb would also have to have carbon nanotubes just to get to the depth that they needed. Now they want to do a 5X the power? Great just wait for nuclear fallout now...............

cr2sh
Mar 8, 2003, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by kettle
No, not me, but they did teach me that - just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean "They're" not after me.:confused:

Look at you pulling out the nirvana.

MaxArturo
Mar 9, 2003, 01:30 AM
weird.... and scary....

IJ Reilly
Mar 9, 2003, 11:51 AM
Tactical nuclear weapons. Isn't that like being "just a little pregnant?"

Nuc
Mar 10, 2003, 12:28 AM
I seriously doubt that any time soon will we be dropping nuclear bombs. This is used only as a last resort weapon. Besides if we where to drop bombs on N Korea wouldn't that be stupid. Think about it N Korea is extremely close to S Korea and Japan and other countries. They are able to strike them with all of their long range missiles.

They do make bombs that are able to penetrate into the ground that would yield a high enough explosion without using nuclear. And I am sure the government will or has already made a nuclear bomb that penetrates into the ground however it will only be used as an option if all else fails. Everybody gets so worked up over nuclear weapons, I mean yes they are dangerous but we won't drop these unless we have to, like we did on Japan during WWII.

N Korea will be dealt with by either diplomacy or by invasion, not dropping nukes everywhere. That would be ignorant.

This is my opinion

beatle888
Mar 10, 2003, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by Nuc
Everybody gets so worked up over nuclear weapons, I mean yes they are dangerous but we won't drop these unless we have to, like we did on Japan during WWII.

N Korea will be dealt with by either diplomacy or by invasion, not dropping nukes everywhere. That would be ignorant.

This is my opinion



wow, i cant believe how people embrace the mass slaughter of innocent lives. reality is a harsh beast.

cr2sh
Mar 10, 2003, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Nuc
Everybody gets so worked up over nuclear weapons, I mean yes they are dangerous but we won't drop these unless we have to, like we did on Japan during WWII.

N Korea will be dealt with by either diplomacy or by invasion, not dropping nukes everywhere. That would be ignorant.


We had the choice to invade Japan, we chose to drop atomic bombs on them instead. That was an ignorant decision.

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by cr2sh
We had the choice to invade Japan, we chose to drop atomic bombs on them instead. That was an ignorant decision.

Why was this an ignorant decision? Was it because it saved over 300,000 American lives? Really, come explain to me why this was such a bad decision.


Hey beatle, I know you love innocent civilians, but these weapons are designed to penetrate underground, into facilities, where the people working are trying to build weapons that can kill you. NOT INNOCENT CIVILIANS THE LAST TIME I CHECKED!

Mr. Anderson
Mar 10, 2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by cr2sh
We had the choice to invade Japan, we chose to drop atomic bombs on them instead. That was an ignorant decision.

Not so - not only would there have been heavy casualities on the US side, but the number of Japanese that died would have pushed the total death toll over a 1,000,000 - that's a hell of a lot less than the number of people killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. True, it was unfortunate that they were used, and it was more than just the lives at stake in Japan - Russia had a huge army massed in Germany and Eastern Europe at the time. Dropping the bombs basically told Russia not to press forward and think of taking over the rest of Europe. Continued war in Europe would have cost even more lives. And Russia was serious - remember the Berlin Airlift?

D

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by dukestreet
Not so - not only would there have been heavy casualities on the US side, but the number of Japanese that died would have pushed the total death toll over a 1,000,000 - that's a hell of a lot less than the number of people killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. True, it was unfortunate that they were used, and it was more than just the lives at stake in Japan - Russia had a huge army massed in Germany and Eastern Europe at the time. Dropping the bombs basically told Russia not to press forward and think of taking over the rest of Europe. Continued war in Europe would have cost even more lives. And Russia was serious - remember the Berlin Airlift?
D Great post Duke! Finally someone sees how the bomb actually protected lives. And was the most humaine thing to do.

Mr. Anderson
Mar 10, 2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Great post Duke! Finally someone sees how the bomb actually protected lives. And was the most humaine thing to do.

It would be a lesser evil, in my opinion. But given the alternatives at the time, it really had to be done. Today's political landscape is very different, especially with the fact that Dictators are trying to arm themselves with nukes. There are very few solutions to this problem, given everyone is basically out for themselves. What needs to be realized above all else is that everyone is on this planet together and that petty little powerplays are only a sure way to cause problems and get people killed. Work with the systems not against them.

But even though its easy to define the problems, working a solution is not going to be possible any time soon. The human race as a whole, needs to grow up, and this will take centuries or millenia, if we allow ourselves to live that long.

D

cr2sh
Mar 10, 2003, 11:35 AM
Its been a while but to my memory...

On August 3rd the US tested its first successful nuclear weapon, Truman used this weapon on August 6th, with little understanding of how it would affect the people he used it on. All he saw was a weapon that could end the war quickly and limit American losses, he nor anyone, had ANY idea of the devastation it would cause for generations to come. That was ignorant... or am I wrong?

Did it save lives? Yes.

lmalave
Mar 10, 2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Great post Duke! Finally someone sees how the bomb actually protected lives. And was the most humaine thing to do.

Yeah, it's hard for people today to understand what we were up against. Keep in mind people that even after we nuked Hiroshima the Japanese did not surrender!!! And then after we nuked Nagasaski they still did not surrender!!! Finally, 3 days after Nagasaki they surrendered on condition that the Emperor would still have a ceremonial role in government.

This is a country that had a military leadership that was perfectly willing to commit national suicide rather than surrender. Only the shock of something like a nuclear bomb attack would rattle them out of that type of thinking. I think a LOT more than a million lives were saved.

lmalave
Mar 10, 2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by cr2sh
Its been a while but to my memory...

On August 3rd the US tested its first successful nuclear weapon, Truman used this weapon on August 6th, with little understanding of how it would affect the people he used it on. All he saw was a weapon that could end the war quickly and limit American losses, he nor anyone, had ANY idea of the devastation it would cause for generations to come. That was ignorant... or am I wrong?

Did it save lives? Yes.

Nuclear scientists were certainly aware that radiation poisoning could cause death beyond just the effects of the initial blast. They were not specifically aware of effects like increased cancer rates, but they knew from experience about radiation burns, etc. caused by mere exposure to radiation, so they certainly knew that it would have some sort of environmental impact.

But anyway, they knew this was a devastating weapon. It already had a n estimated "kiloton" power before it was used. When you consider that a one ton bomb is already quite a large bomb, and you're taking about kilotons, they knew what kind of power they were dealing with.

cr2sh
Mar 10, 2003, 12:03 PM
Heh, funny that youre posting from Manhattan.

I don't believe that Truman knew what he was dealing with, I can't believe that. If he knew what it would do to those people, the long term devastating effects, and still he used it... I can't imagine anyone being that inhumane.

lmalave
Mar 10, 2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by cr2sh
Heh, funny that youre posting from Manhattan.

I don't believe that Truman knew what he was dealing with, I can't believe that. If he knew what it would do to those people, the long term devastating effects, and still he used it... I can't imagine anyone being that inhumane.

So let me get this straight - you'd rather have millions upon millions of people killed or maimed by conventional means rather than a few hundred thousand killed by the bombs and their later effects?

Are you aware of what a mortar shell can do to a human body? What makes one type of death more preferable to another? I think Truman was trying to minimize the total amount of carnage required to bring about Japan's unconditional surrender - which was necessary so that it wouldn't rise up again to rape and pillage its neighbors. See my post above - even two nukes was barely enough. Japan's leadership was perfectly willing to leave Japan a pile of twisted metal and mangled and charred bodies - all to defend their "honor". We should just count ourselved lucky that they surrendered at all.

Chef Ramen
Mar 10, 2003, 06:48 PM
how deep would an earth-penetrating missle go? i have a feeling that no matter HOW deep, it would **** up not only the subterranean stuff, but things on the surface as well. you all know how big an area the blast of a nuclear bomb affects...i doubt these missles willl be able to travel several miles underground and not cause everything on the surface to fly into the air

Mr. Anderson
Mar 10, 2003, 06:58 PM
If it is a sub 10kton yield, it really won't be that big of a blast. Hitting a bunker and boring down a 100' or more it would more likely knock the top of the bunker off, but everything else would just show up as a big dent in the ground.

D

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
If it is a sub 10kton yield, it really won't be that big of a blast. Hitting a bunker and boring down a 100' or more it would more likely knock the top of the bunker off, but everything else would just show up as a big dent in the ground.

D

Actually a 10Kiloton yeild at 100' below the surface would raise everything within 1 mile about 50 feet in the air, and the heat blast would be rather devistaing. Still nothing like an above surface detonation.

Mr. Anderson
Mar 10, 2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Actually a 10Kiloton yeild at 100' below the surface would raise everything within 1 mile about 50 feet in the air, and the heat blast would be rather devistaing. Still nothing like an above surface detonation.

Well, you have to take into account that if the tunnel system is significant (which it would be) there would be a lot of blast travelling in all directions. It would leave a crater, but not that big. And I'm not sure what that blast radius would be - I was thinking more along the lines of a 5 kton, like they were talking about. Should have been more clear.

D

Backtothemac
Mar 10, 2003, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by dukestreet
Well, you have to take into account that if the tunnel system is significant (which it would be) there would be a lot of blast travelling in all directions. It would leave a crater, but not that big. And I'm not sure what that blast radius would be - I was thinking more along the lines of a 5 kton, like they were talking about. Should have been more clear.

D

Yea, that figures to be right. Plus the geomorphology of the area would play into the dispertion of the blast pattern too.