Log In | Register
U.S. bombs not strong enough to destroy Iran's nuclear program, report says - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
Article Source: Haaretz News
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (8)
The US bombs aren't strong enough 2 destroy Iran's Nuclear Program. Well, what would be the purpose of Israel bombing Iran? R they trying 2 start World War III.
- 3 votes
#1 - Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:31 AM ESTIt's interesting that articles that report that impossibility of destroying deeply buried targets don't discuss the physics behind the limitation.
Even though the referenced article below discusses a Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapon, the physics would be the same for a conventional munition;
It is straightforward to show, however, that the maximum penetration depth is severely limited if the missile casing is to remain intact. One can make reasonably accurate estimates of the penetration depth based on the well-developed theory of "long-rod penetration." The fundamental parameter R is the ratio of the projectile ram pressure to the yield strength of the material.3 The target material yields, and penetration occurs, when Ris greater than one. For a steel rod to penetrate concrete, the minimum velocities for penetration is about one half a kilometer per second (1100 miles per hour). For ductile materials, the kinetic energy lost from the penetrator can deform the target and dig out a penetration crater.
Fundamentally, however, the depth of penetration is limited by the yield strength of the penetrator — in this case, the missile casing. Even for the strongest materials, impact velocities greater than a few kilometers per second will substantially deform and even melt the impactor.
An earth-penetrating nuclear weapon must protect the warhead and its associated electronics while it burrows into the ground. This severely limits the missile to impact velocities of less than about three kilometers per second for missile cases made from the very hardest steels. From the theory of "long-rod penetration," in this limit the maximum possible depth D of penetration is proportional to the length and density of the penetrator and inversely proportional to the density of the target. The maximum depth of penetration depends only weakly on the yield strength of the penetrator.4 For typical values for steel and concrete, we expect an upper bound to the penetration depth to be roughly 10 times the missile length, or about 100 feet for a 10 foot missile. In actual practice the impact velocity and penetration depth must be well below this to ensure the missile and its contents are not severely damaged.
Given these constraints, it is simply not possible for a kinetic energy weapon to penetrate deeply enough into the earth to contain a nuclear explosion.
Notes:
3R = v2 / 2Y = (v/vc) 2 where is the projectile density, v is its velocity, Y is the yield strength of the material, and the critical velocity vc = (2Y /)1/2
4For a penetrator which is much stronger than the target, D/L (p / t) ln(Yp / Yt), where L is the length of the penetrator, is the material density, and Y is the material strength to plastic yielding; the subscripts p and tstand for the penetrator and target.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/new_nuclear_weapons/loyieldearthpenwpnrpt.html
In a Reuters article, it stated the Iran's nuclear facilities may be as deep as 260 feet;
Boeing's 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), an ultra-large bunker buster for use on underground targets, with Iran routinely mentioned as its most likely intended destination, is a key element in the implicit U.S. threat to use force as a last report against Iran's nuclear ambitions.
...While the chances of such a strike succeeding are slim, they are not so slim as to enable Tehran to rule out the possibility of one being attempted, according to defense experts contacted by Reuters.
...The vulnerability of the chamber at Fordow, believed buried up to 80 meters (260 feet) deep on a former missile base controlled by the elite Revolutionary Guards Corps, came into sharper focus on Monday when the United Nations nuclear watchdog confirmed that Iran had started enriching uranium at the site.
If true, this is actually outside the weapons envelope of the MOB;
The GPS-guided GBU-57A/B has a 2.7 metric ton high explosive warhead, and can penetrate 200 feet (60 meters) of 5,000 psi reinforced concrete, 26 feet (8 meters) of 10,000 psis reinforced concrete, or 130 feet (40 meters) of moderately hard rock
http://gizmodo.com/5285865/30000+pound-massive-ordnance-penetrator-is-not-what-you-think
I think mountains would qualify as moderately hard rock.
The limitation of a bunker buster has never been the explosive, it getting the weapon deep enough to destroy the target without the casing melting before it gets there.
Good seed Phyllis, thanks
- 4 votes
Thank U,
I'll have 2 get my Husband 2 read your post 2 me real slow. I thought I knew enough about MOP & bombs. Thank U so much. U made me fell real dumb. I'm learning though!
- 1 vote
I'm not quick to accept any mere rationalization that even seems to advance the "necessity" of a nuclear weapon being employed in a first strike scenario.
It has long seemed to me that any bunker or cave is also a potentially a tomb if ALL exists are closed and kept closed. So penetrating to the main bunker may NOT be necessary if all access TO that bunker is closed. I'm sure we have a weapon or weapons that can be used to seal the mountain. Or we can modify them so they will do so.
There is NO reason to build such bunkers/cave systems if there is only peaceful intent. The idea of all that money being spent to just produce power is not going to fly with this poster...Iran could buy a LOT of oil for what is being spent on that complex.
The fate of the world literally hangs on nuclear weapons NOT EVER being seen as usable in any but the most extreme conditions which can be basically defined as "NOT FIRST STRIKE" weapons. What we didn't know during WWII we DO KNOW now and no one has any excuse to use nukes and risk poisoning th entire planet over politicians and their ilk.
Tactic/countertactic and weapon/counter-weapon is long been the way of warfare and weapons.
I feel the social media is feeding the problem of weapon/counter-weapon as the entire cycle is speeded up and becomes more and more costly because the "other side" reads the news and produces a countermeasure to defeat the current weapon. US military technology should in some cases be treated with greater secrecy so it does not end up being obsolete only due to information about it's capabilities being put into the public sphere by the mass media.
The USA and the World has had too much conflict and too much war. While it may be reasonable to prepare for war I suggest we fight for peace just as hard.
- 2 votes
#2 - Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:44 PM ESTIt has long seemed to me that any bunker or cave is also a potentially a tomb if ALL exists are closed and kept closed. So penetrating to the main bunker may NOT be necessary if all access TO that bunker is closed. I'm sure we have a weapon or weapons that can be used to seal the mountain. Or we can modify them so they will do so.
But as soon as the attacks stop, bring in the MHE and dig out the opening while the actual "program" remains untouched. All we will have done is started a potential world war by attacking doors and air ducts that can easily be rebuilt.
There is NO reason to build such bunkers/cave systems if there is only peaceful intent. The idea of all that money being spent to just produce power is not going to fly with this poster...Iran could buy a LOT of oil for what is being spent on that complex.
It's their country, though, they can't they build whatever the like? They fear their enemies are capable of attacking them just as we feared our enemies and their capability. We've built NORAD inside a mountain and we don't store nuclear weapons there or have a weapon programs operating there.
The fate of the world literally hangs on nuclear weapons NOT EVER being seen as usable in any but the most extreme conditions which can be basically defined as "NOT FIRST STRIKE" weapons. What we didn't know during WWII we DO KNOW now and no one has any excuse to use nukes and risk poisoning th entire planet over politicians and their ilk.
But they are seen as usable, we've let that genie out of the bottle. We used them on Japan and Japan didn't cease to exist. Not only that, we went on to station millions of American troops there over that last 7 decades. Japan recovered and now thrives, so in a way, we've done just the opposite, we've shown, by example, that a nation can adsorb an nuclear attack and survive.
I think the world just needs to realize that stopping a nation from becoming a nuclear power is impossible, it just can't be done and that going to war to stop them is worst than living with a nuclear Iran.
The USSR had more nuclear warheads than we had at, their Bio/Chem weapons program continued long after we dismantled ours, Reagan called it the evil empire, but we still managed to effect change in that country, so much so, it finally collapsed.
I see the war option as a short cut, but there is no short cut. The Cold War lasted for decades but we won it, what some are saying now is that we don't have the patience to out-last the Iranians so lets attack em.
The USA and the World has had too much conflict and too much war. While it may be reasonable to prepare for war I suggest we fight for peace just as hard.
I think the world just needs to realize that stopping a nation from becoming a nuclear power is impossible, it just can't be done and that going to war to stop them is worst than living with a nuclear Iran.
I also think that some people look at Israel and see that they have survived nearly 70 years of perpetual conflict and think that they have been successful at keeping their enemies in check. If you look at our foreign policy, it's starting to look remarkably similar to theirs. Many suggest that our interests and Israeli interest are much the same, but that is not the reality and I don't think that Americans will stand for much more of the Bush Doctrine.
- 2 votes
I'm not quick to accept any mere rationalization that even seems to advance the "necessity" of a nuclear weapon being employed in a first strike scenario.
Agreed, I don't think that any rational person could even consider using LYEP nuke because it would really wouldn't be much different than using a tactical air burst nuke, the highly radioactive fallout will still kill many people.
Just how deep must an underground nuclear explosion be buried in order for the blast and fallout to be contained?
The US conducted a series of underground nuclear explosions in the 1960s — the Plowshare tests — to investigate the possible use of nuclear explosives for excavation purposes. Those performed prior to the 1963 Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty, such as the Sedan test shown in Figure 4, were buried at relatively shallow depths to maximize the size of the crater produced.
In addition to the immediate effects of blast, air shock, and thermal radiation, shallow nuclear explosions produce especially intense local radioactive fallout. The fireball breaks through the surface of the earth, carrying into the air large amounts of dirt and debris. This material has been exposed to the intense neutron flux from the nuclear detonation, which adds to the radioactivity from the fission products. The cloud typically consists of a narrow column and a broad base surge of air filled with radioactive dust which expands to a radius of over a mile for a 5 kiloton explosion.1 In the Plowshare tests, roughly 50 percent of the total radioactivity produced in the explosion was distributed as local fallout — the other half being confined to the highly-radioactive crater.
In order to be fully contained, nuclear explosions at the Nevada Test Site must be buried at a depth of 650 feet for a 5 kiloton explosive — 1300 feet for a 100-kiloton explosive.2 Even then, there are many documented cases where carefully sealed shafts ruptured and released radioactivity to the local environment.
Therefore, even if an earth penetrating missile were somehow able to drill hundreds of feet into the ground and then detonate, the explosion would likely shower the surrounding region with highly radioactive dust and gas.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/new_nuclear_weapons/loyieldearthpenwpnrpt.html
- 2 votes
When is it going to end. Mankind can't wait to destroy itself. Who came up with MOP? Yea, destroy Iran, that'll solve the problem.
- 1 vote
#3 - Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:18 PM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
