Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: Flatten Mountains with The Bomb

  1. #1

    Default Flatten Mountains with The Bomb

    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!
    Last edited by PassKey; 02-21-2012 at 09:40 AM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Xaito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    28
    Posts
    12,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PassKey View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Mordoror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Backstabbing allies in a foxhole
    Age
    41
    Posts
    9,105

    Default

    ^^^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

  4. #4
    Senior Member Chiptox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    East Farms, PNW
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,903

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Moderator James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Washington
    Age
    40
    Posts
    15,229

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Moderator James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Washington
    Age
    40
    Posts
    15,229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chiptox View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Bush Lawyer, that's me! TheKiwi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    FYTW
    Age
    44
    Posts
    14,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Piirka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    5,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    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
    Last edited by Piirka; 02-21-2012 at 06:18 PM.

  9. #9
    I think I know everything, but I don't lightfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    5,184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PassKey View Post
    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)

  10. #10

    Default

    Wait, what conspiracy "nuts"?

  11. #11
    Senior Member Piirka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    5,490

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PassKey View Post
    Wait, what conspiracy "nuts"?
    Idk, this?

  12. #12
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Blah, blah, friggin' blah.
    Posts
    21,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Member fmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Staring pseudo-communists over pointy barbed wires
    Posts
    543

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Sedan_Plowshare_Crater.jpg 
Views:	133 
Size:	201.8 KB 
ID:	174326

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mordoror View Post
    ^^^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.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Mordoror's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Backstabbing allies in a foxhole
    Age
    41
    Posts
    9,105

    Default

    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

  15. #15
    Member Godfather057's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    For ever alone...
    Posts
    135

    Default

    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?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •