09-10-2007, 03:58 AM
In order to debunk the righties supposition that earth penetrating bunker buster nukes can be used safely, you need powerful information. This site provides just that.
What you have to ask yourself is will the explosion be contained, because if it isn't, you are going to have fallout... and fallout will kill thousands if not millions of innocent people...
So just how deep does a nuke have to be to contain ALL of the radioactivity?
This site will tell you that, and I guarantee after you have read it, you too will not believe any safety assurances coming out of the government regarding the use of mini-nukes. You will know that those assurances are patently false.
What you have to ask yourself is will the explosion be contained, because if it isn't, you are going to have fallout... and fallout will kill thousands if not millions of innocent people...
So just how deep does a nuke have to be to contain ALL of the radioactivity?
This site will tell you that, and I guarantee after you have read it, you too will not believe any safety assurances coming out of the government regarding the use of mini-nukes. You will know that those assurances are patently false.
Quote:
Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear WeaponsBy Robert W. Nelson
FAS Public Interest Report
The Journal of the Federation of American Scientists
..snip
Senators Warner and Allard imagine these nuclear weapons could be used in small-scale conventional conflicts against rogue dictators, while leaving most of the civilian population untouched. As one anonymous former Pentagon official put it to the Washington Post last spring,
"What's needed now is something that can threaten a bunker tunneled under 300 meters of granite without killing the surrounding civilian population."
Statements like these promote the illusion that nuclear weapons could be used in ways which minimize their "collateral damage," making them acceptable tools to be used like conventional weapons.
As described in detail below, however, the use of any nuclear weapon capable of destroying a buried target that is otherwise immune to conventional attack will necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties. No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout.
..snip
Containment
Just how deep must an underground nuclear explosion be buried in order for the blast and fallout to be contained?
...snip
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. 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.
...snip
FAS Public Interest Report
The Journal of the Federation of American Scientists
..snip
Senators Warner and Allard imagine these nuclear weapons could be used in small-scale conventional conflicts against rogue dictators, while leaving most of the civilian population untouched. As one anonymous former Pentagon official put it to the Washington Post last spring,
"What's needed now is something that can threaten a bunker tunneled under 300 meters of granite without killing the surrounding civilian population."
Statements like these promote the illusion that nuclear weapons could be used in ways which minimize their "collateral damage," making them acceptable tools to be used like conventional weapons.
As described in detail below, however, the use of any nuclear weapon capable of destroying a buried target that is otherwise immune to conventional attack will necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties. No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout.
..snip
Containment
Just how deep must an underground nuclear explosion be buried in order for the blast and fallout to be contained?
...snip
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. 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.
...snip
SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY FEET????
no penetrator can burrow that deeply and even if it could, how in heavens name would they be able to seal it to encapsulate the blast?
Quote:
continuing...
...snip
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.
...snip
...snip
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.
...snip
Mini nukes are a bad idea. But the idea of using them on underground targets would be even worse. They aren't going to be able to contain the blast or the fallout. Thousands of innocent lives will be lost.
Those that support the madness of using mini-nukes in urban settings will bear the responsibility for it. Everlasting responsibility.