Talk:Nuclear bunker buster

RNEP
I am starting to think this needs to be merged with RNEP. If anyone is watching and has an opinion on this, please let me know, and I'll do the deed. Otherwise I may do it anyways when I become sufficiently motivated. Avriette 03:20, July 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * The information contained in this article about RNEP should be merged into that article and only an overview paragraph in this article should be kept in this article.


 * This article should be kept as there is the whole arms race between the US and USSR over deeper and deeper bunkers to by hit by bigger and bigger bombs, until at last the Americans went for Air force One as more secure than a bunker when it was realised that a big enough nuke would always get through eg Cheyenne Mountain and the Tsar Bomba. Philip Baird Shearer 16:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe RNEP should be merged with this article. This is the more general term, and RNEP has been cancelled. The majority of the RNEP article is about the nuclear bunker buster concept in general; all that could really be said specifically about RNEP is the start and end dates of the project. TomTheHand 15:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm working on the merge. I'd love it if somebody could come up with a source on the above re: Tsar Bomba. Overall, I agree with Philip, it's sort of an arms race. And though the RNEP has been cancelled, it's only a matter of time before somebody at Elgin or another president decides they need a bigger, meaner bomb. Avriette 16:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll tinker with this some more this weekend, but a draft is here. Avriette 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the cancellation of the RNEP program doesn't kill the nuclear bunker buster concept, but it does kill the RNEP name, so I suggested that RNEP be merged here rather than vice versa. I think your proposed draft is very good. TomTheHand 14:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

On June 30th, 2005 the Bush administration sought funding to further develop or "study" the RNEP(Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator). It was rejected. The plan was to use the existing B63 nuke with a yield of 1 megaton in it's design. That is the equivalent of 71 Hiroshima bombs. Scientists say that the deepest an RNEP could penetrate before detonation would be approximately 12 feet. Which is far from it's goal of 1000 feet. At such a shallow depth the RNEP would actually cause MORE nuclear fallout than it would if it was used conventionally. Thus is the reason intelligent members of the Senate rejected funding. Scientists also concluded in studies that the fallout (if used in Iran) would kill around 3 million people in an area that spans all the way to India. Members of the science community and the U.S. Senate also emphasize the hypocritical message proliferation would send to countries like Iran and North Korea. I like to compare it to a parent telling their teenager not to smoke as they light up a cigarette. Any form of nuclear warfare is unintelligible. The radioactive fragments and debris would disperse over large areas rendering soil barren and environment cancerous. Albert Einstien,on his deathbed, expressed that his only regret was telling FDR to use a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. While he didn't invent the actual bomb he was the first to discover that large amounts of energy could be released from small amounts of matter. The final decision makers that 'dropped the bomb' were glad they did. They were glad because they hoped it would open the eyes of the world to the dangers of nuclear and conventional warfare in the future. In other words... Don't use them! --68.160.146.174 05:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Andrea; 1:26am July 8, 2007

Tsar Bomba
The current article makes it sound as if most people think/thought that the Tsar Bomba was supposed to be some sort of bunker-busting weapon and that the U.S. changed its policy to counter it. I have seen no evidence for this; almost all sources say that the Tsar Bomba was a show-weapon primarily and, importantly, that its large size was not only inefficient for use in battle but also would have prohibited it actually being able to make it as far as somewhere like Cheyenne Mountain. I'd like to see a citation for the current paragraph, or I'd like to see it modified to be more accurate. If the threat is from multi-megaton weapons in general, that's of course worth stating, but giving the Tsar Bomba unnecessary prominence here seems to be unwarranted. --Fastfission 00:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked, above, for a source for it. I did not find one. However, many people visible through Google seem to think that was the purpose. I would have listed a source if I found one. Feel free to change it -- I only wanted to get rid of the RNEP article and complete the merge. Avriette 01:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It is worth noting that...
The last clause of this sentence seems odd. Do we mean that the weapons can penetrate 30 meters of concrete which is covered with only a shallow layer of soil? Do we mean that 30 meters is shallow compared to the depth required to prevent fallout? I can't figure it out. (While we're at it, can we replace the first clause with a more informative transition, like "by comparison,..."?) Cheers, -Will Beback 11:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that in the United States arsenal, weapons which penetrate as much as 30 meters have been developed, but only against shallow targets.
 * That is confusing. I'm thinking that what is meant is that weapons which can penetrate as much as 30 meters have been developed, but that's not considered deep enough to attack very deeply buried targets. TomTheHand 14:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I'm responsible for that sentence (I certainly could be), but I agree it was awkward, and prefer it the way it is presently. Avriette 16:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * user: Patrick fixed it. Thanks everybody. -Will Beback 17:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, as I think about this, I realize what I might have meant (or the original author). As the article mentions, it is possible to penetrate the surface superficially. In this case, 30m would be sufficient. The notion being that after penetration of some depth that the shockwave from the munition would be able to destroy hardened targets. Does that make sense? Avriette 21:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are two separate issues: one is the ability of a weapon to destroy its target, and the other is the ability of the weapon to burrow in far enough to trap fallout. From what I've read, even a shallow penetration can substantially increase the force of the blast, so a 30-meter depth may be sufficient to destroy many bunkers. However since the section is labelled "Problems with proposed weapons", I think it is more likely that the intent of the sentence is to show the penetration is not nearly deep enough to contain nuclear fallout. -Will Beback 21:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Approximation formula of penetration
The formula, mentioned numerous times in the article, is linked with the Impact Depth article, and the audience is told to refer to the formula there. However, nowhere in that article is any formula given.--2ltben 07:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

question on intro paragraph
The intro implies that nuclear bunker busters already exist when it states "Bunker-busting nuclear weapons are a type of nuclear weapon...". Then it states "These weapons would be used to destroy hardened, underground military bunkers buried deep in the ground." which implies that have do not yet exists. It is my understanding that they do not currently exists but that the Bush administration wants the U.S. to research and develop them. While their has been some research on them to date, I believe congress has cut funding for such research and that no actually weapon has been built. Thus I'm indeed remembering the facts correctly then the first sentence should have a qualifier like "proposed". --Cab88 07:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bunker-busting nuclear weapons do exist. The B61 Mod 11 is an example.  The whole recent brouhaha over these weapons was from the Bush administration's desire to develop one which would penetrate deeply enough that the fallout would be contained.  Such a weapon could theoretically be used outside the context of nuclear war.  The sentence "These weapons would be used to destroy hardened, underground military bunkers buried deep in the ground" is not meant to imply that they do not exist, but rather that they have never been used but would be used in this way if there were a nuclear war. TomTheHand 13:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fallout

 * ''These weapons could actually increase the amount of fallout due to the abundance of newly radioactively charged particles. --68.160.146.174 05:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Andrea

These weapons would in theory diminish the amount of radioactive nuclear fallout by reducing the yield of the warhead required to attack a particular target.'' I thought that, in theory, it is impossible make the bomb burrow deply enough to prevent fallout, and that, in theory, the fallout would be only slight minimized. That seems to be what the article says later. I think that we should perhaps delete or modify the sentence to better reflect the article. -Will Beback 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That line isn't saying there wouldn't be any fallout. It says that in order to diminish the fallout from such a weapon, they'd use very low-yield nukes. --Fastfission 20:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right, my mistake. -Will Beback 21:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's no big deal. The fact that you were confused by it probably indicates that it could be worded more clearly. --Fastfission 21:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Errors
"The crater volume varies approximately inversely with the square root of the concrete's compressive strength. Therefore, increasing the compressive strength of the concrete by 50% will yield an approximately 25% smaller crater."

That is not mathematically correct, and I have removed it.

B61-11 Yield
The yield of the B61-11 speculated at here (400kiloton) is much higher than that proposed in B61, which states it is likely either 10 or 340 kiloton due to sharing the same warhead as the B61-7. References are needed. Fehrgo 04:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Harper´s article
Hi. This Harper´s article states that the nuclear bunker buster is a bluff Randroide (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Concrete Design
Someone who has expertise regarding concrete please add information regarding high and ultra-high performance concrete. I believe the information regarding concrete design is untrue and has a susbstantial impact on the issue of conventional weapon performance versus modern and near-term future hardened concrete structures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.199.167 (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fallout in the heading?
The heading of the article has some claims about fallout - shouldn't this be moved to a chapter? Rkarlsba (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Nuclear bunker buster. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.windowonheartland.net/2012/02/russias-top-secret-bases.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)