Flatten Mountains with The Bomb

[PassKey]

I remember (or maybe it was just my imagination lol) there was thought during the Afghanistan Campaign in Tora Bora and now with the upcoming Iranian Nuclear Facilities which are hidden beneath mountains, to drop a either a H/A-Bomb/Megaton/Low-Level/ (not sure which one) nuke to:

- Expose the inside of the mountain for further bombardment
- Flatten it all together
- Cave it in thus the facilities become unusable at least for a certain period of time

Any idea? Is this at all feasible and have these been discussed (publicly or by defense/military strategy magazines)? I realize the effects of radiation, but lets say we were going for "Victory at All Costs", are there certain bombs that can produce these effects?

Thanks and Yes, I am being totally serious!

[Xaito]

I remember (or maybe it was just my imagination lol) there was thought during the Afghanistan Campaign in Tora Bora and now with the upcoming Iranian Nuclear Facilities which are hidden beneath mountains, to drop a either a megaton/low-level (not sure which one) nuke to:

- Expose the inside of the mountain for further bombardment
- Flatten it all together
- Cave it in thus the facilities become unusable at least for a certain period of time

Any idea? Is this at all feasible and have these been discussed (publicly or by defense/military strategy magazines)? I realize the effects of radiation, but lets say we were going for "Victory at All Costs", are there certain bombs that can produce these effects?

Thanks and Yes, I am being totally serious!

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Castle.html
knock yourself out and do the math yourself.
Some of the test results of surface bursts contain crater depth and diameter, though I guess these things are subject to variation depending on the surface.
I assume it's not as easy to put a dent into a mountain + reinforced concrete or whatever they'd be using to build their labs.
Feel free to compare the data to penetration capabilities of modern bunker busters.
You should also consider that the bigger craters have been cause by H-Bombs - those things have an enormous yield - not something you'd use on a whim.

Post results pf your research here if possible, so we all benefit from it.

[Mordoror]

^^^if i remember correctly the SU had reinforced penetrators of 25 MgT singlewarheads to level/flatten/annihilate Cheyenne Moutain
Of course even a single one was not enough so several of them were targetting the CM complex

[Chiptox]

Iirc, back about 8 years ago the Bush admin floated the idea of tactical nuclear bunker-busters against hardened targets in NK, Iran, etc. Very low yield. 0.1 kt or smth precision dropped from B-2s. The thought was that it took up less volume than conventional explosives and improved penetration could be had.

Never came to anything and was roundly shouted down in congress and in the media as first-use of nuclear arms is kind of a no-no.

[James]

In the 1950s or 60s (I think) the U.S. actually came up with plans to use several buried nukes to create an artificial harbor. I believe it was in Alaska.

[James]

Iirc, back about 8 years ago the Bush admin floated the idea of tactical nuclear bunker-busters against hardened targets in NK, Iran, etc. Very low yield. 0.1 kt or smth precision dropped from B-2s. The thought was that it took up less volume than conventional explosives and improved penetration could be had.

This is what I remember.

[TheKiwi]

In the 1950s or 60s (I think) the U.S. actually came up with plans to use several buried nukes to create an artificial harbor. I believe it was in Alaska.

The AEC had all sorts of whacky whacky atomic ideas in the 50's. Making a new Panama Canal, excavating harbours, trimming mountain tops to improve local weather, you name it.

[Piirka]

In the 1950s or 60s (I think) the U.S. actually came up with plans to use several buried nukes to create an artificial harbor. I believe it was in Alaska.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chariot_(1958)

The russian PNE's might be more applicable to consideration in this scenario.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...tional_Economy

[lightfire]

but lets say we were going for "Victory at All Costs"

For this, you must have a situation of WWIII around or at least US being nuked. Otherwise using nukes, even tactical ones for offensive would create buckets of international reactions even US couldn't handle. That said, nothing is impossible in scenarios mentioned (WWIII, US under nuclear attack - oh I smell the conspiracy nuts already from here)

[PassKey]

Wait, what conspiracy "nuts"?

[Piirka]

Wait, what conspiracy "nuts"?

Idk, this?

[C.Puffs]

In the 1950s or 60s (I think) the U.S. actually came up with plans to use several buried nukes to create an artificial harbor. I believe it was in Alaska.

Check Plowshare. Also, ground bursts and subsurface bursts are good for digging out dirt. Ivy Mike made a crater over a mile across.

[fmaster]

Sedan crater, created on Nevada test site by 104 kt nuclear explosion. It's 100 meters deep and 390 meters in diameter. Considering that the device was placed in 200-meter deep shaft and the ground was consisted of sands, I assume that it would be impossibly harder to level a real mountain. Penetrating nuclear warheads designed to destroy somewhat-hardened targets are in fact in the inventory of nations such as United States, though.

^^^if i remember correctly the SU had reinforced penetrators of 25 MgT singlewarheads to level/flatten/annihilate Cheyenne Moutain
Of course even a single one was not enough so several of them were targetting the CM complex

I think 'leveling' meant destroying NORAD combat operations center inside the mountain. Cheyenne mountain itself is about 10,000 feet tall, and even Tsar Bomba couldn't literally 'level' such things.

[Mordoror]

I think 'leveling' meant destroying NORAD combat operations center inside the mountain. Cheyenne mountain itself is about 10,000 feet tall, and even Tsar Bomba couldn't literally 'level' such things.

Yep you are right
This is much more a figure of style
In fact to "level" "a moutain" you need a larger explosion (Mount St Helens was supposed to be around 350 MgT equivalent)
Novarupta explosion was estimated for 3500 MgT
Krakatoa explosion was estimated around 5250 MgT
Tambora explosion was estimated around 24,5 gigatons

Yep we are pretty far of the weak Tsar Bomba

[Godfather057]

Does anyone recall the nuclear test were we detonated two nuclear bombs next to eachother at the exact same time? I have always wonderd what would happen. Does anyone recall that test?