A Comparison of Nuclear Explosion Effectiveness against Underground Terrorists.

Bluebay | OCT 26 01 | VANNROX

[vannrox]

A comparison of different types
of Nuclear Explosions...

---

<2 Kton Nuclear Explosion (Micro-Nuke)

Bush's Baby Nuke, by Alistair Millar

On October 2, 1992, President George Bush signed into law a moratorium on nuclear testing. Now his son is preparing to end that moratorium.

The current Bush Administration is studying options for the development and production of a small, low-yield nuclear weapon called an earth-penetrator or bunker-buster, which would burrow into the ground and destroy a deeply buried hideaway of a "rogue" leader like Saddam Hussein.

But such a bomb would take many more people with it.

"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," writes Dr. Robert Nelson, a professor of theoretical science at Princeton University, in a recent study for the Federation of American Scientists. "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 crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout."

The blast from one of these weapons would "knock down nearly all homes and apartments--and kill nearly all the people in them--out to distances of greater than half a mile from the blast," says Greg Mello, who directs the Los Alamos Study Group, a nuclear weapons policy research and education group based in Santa Fe. Those who survived the blast would suffer a lethal dose of radiation, he predicts. "To take a specific example," says Mello, "if the target in question were the Iraqi presidential bunker located in south-central Baghdad, there would be very roughly 20,000 people located within one-half mile of this target."

If the Bush Administration proceeds with the bunker-buster nuke, it would signal a frightening departure for U.S nuclear policy. The United States would be reneging on its pledge not to develop new nuclear weapons, and this would violate the spirit if not the letter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which are geared to the elimination of nuclear weapons, not the making of new ones.

What's more, it would, for the first time in almost fifteen years, confer legitimacy on the idea that nuclear weapons have a suitable role to play even in conventional warfare. This leaping of the firewall would increase the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used in the next decade or so. And it could turn a conventional war into a full-blown nuclear catastrophe.

But that's not how the bunker-buster would be sold. Chances are, it would be coupled with an announcement that the United States is reducing its strategic nuclear stockpile, which Bush pledged to do in the Presidential campaign. And we would hear how it is a designer weapon that is ideal for targeting "rogue" dictators.

"One senior adviser to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that the Iraqi leader would not be deterred by current U.S. nuclear weapons 'because he knows a U.S. President would not drop a 100-kiloton bomb on Baghdad' and destroy the entire city," Walter Pincus of The Washington Post reported on April 15. The implication is that if the United States builds a bunker-buster, it would feel free to use the weapon.

Scientists at the nuclear labs, anxious to keep themselves busy, boast of how functional these weapons would be.

C. Paul Robinson, the president and director of the Sandia National Laboratory, this spring released a paper on the subject, entitled "Pursuing a New Nuclear Weapons Policy for the 21st Century." In it, he stresses the need for nuclear weapons for the foreseeable future and says low-yield--but not too low-yield--nukes are the way to go. "I believe that we would desire primarily low-yield weapons with highly accurate delivery systems for deterrence in the non-Russian world," Robinson argues. "Here, I'm not talking about sub-kiloton weapons (i.e., 'mini-nukes'), as some have advocated, but devices in the low-kiloton regime, in order to contemplate the destruction of some buried or hidden targets, while being mindful of the need to minimize collateral damage. I believe we can achieve the low-yield levels that are likely to be most appropriate for deterring wider threats, particularly if we are unable to design and test new weapons under a nuclear testing moratorium."

Robinson's faith in "highly accurate" bombs would surprise the families of the victims of the Chinese embassy bombing in Belgrade or of the bombings in Iraq. "Highly accurate" bombs often miss their target.

But the drive for the bunker-buster is gaining momentum. Republican Senators John Warner of Virginia and Wayne Allard of Colorado added a provision to the 2001 defense authorization bill that requires the Departments of Energy and Defense to conduct a new study on the use of nuclear weapons in small-scale conventional conflicts against dictators who are holed up in "hard and deeply buried targets." The study is expected to appear in July.

This may lead to the undoing of a Congressional prohibition on testing new nuclear weapons. In 1993, Representatives Elizabeth Furse, Democrat of Oregon, and John Spratt Jr., Democrat of South Carolina, recognized that something had to be done to prevent the development of useable nuclear weapons. They wisely added a provision to the fiscal year 1994 defense authorization bill prohibiting nuclear laboratories from research and development that could lead to a low-yield nuclear weapon. Bush, Warner, and Allard are likely to favor legislation that would negate the Furse-Spratt provision.

The development of these bunker-buster weapons would jeopardize, not enhance, U.S. security. It would give a further incentive to Russia to cling to its own extremely problematic tactical nuclear arsenal. It would compel other countries to embark upon their own programs and increase the perceived need to join the nuclear club. The small size and portability of these weapons would increase their vulnerability to theft by nonnuclear states and potential nuclear terrorists. And if the United States used these weapons against a nuclear power or an ally of a nuclear power, it would be toying with all-out nuclear war.

Plus, the very way these weapons would be used in battle adds to the potential for unauthorized or accidental use. Unlike strategic nuclear weapons, these smaller tactical nuclear weapons are deployed nearer the front line; they are far more susceptible to communications problems under crisis conditions, and they can be fired by a person in the field without going through the stringent safety precautions that govern the launch of strategic nuclear weapons.

The bunker-buster nuke lulls us into believing the dangerous and false notion that nuclear weapons can be used without posing a pernicious threat to human life and the environment. They cannot.

The path toward greater U.S. security is through cooperative measures of disarmament, not unilateral acts of rearmament. The last thing we need is a new kind of nuclear weapon.

---

4 Kton Nuclear Explosion (Pocket-Nuke)
Used as warheads in the Cruise Missiles ALCM and SLCM.

Two stage radiation implosion weapon. The W-80 is based on the W-61 design, so the exterior appearance of the two warheads is probably very similar (if not identical). This is also true of other B-61 derivatives: the W-84 (in the inactive stockpile), the W-81 (no longer in existence), and the W-85 (converted to the B-61).

The 5 kiloton low yield option presumably represents the boosted primary yield alone, while the high yield adds the full secondary yield . The lowest yield option available for the B-61, 0.3 Kt, is not available with the W-80, presumably because a yield this low is of no strategic interest.

W-80 Characteristics

Available Yields (Kt)	5 / 150
Weight	290 lbs
Length	31.4 in
Diameter	11.8 in
Number In Service	Mod 0 (SLCM) 350 Mod 1 (ALCM) 1000 Mod 1 (ACM) 400

---

10 Kton Nuclear Explosion (Local Nuke)
Little Boy - Hiroshima at 15 Kton.
Fatman used at Nagasaki at 21 Kton.

The 1962 articles in the New England Journal of Medicine described the destruction and medical implications of the detonation of a 20 megaton thermonuclear ground-burst explosion above Boston, Massachusetts. Changes in nuclear weapons targeting strategy make it more likely that a number of smaller-yield weapons - with possibly even greater cumulative destructive impact - would be used in the event of a modern-day nuclear strike.

The following summary of effects is based on a 20-megaton ground-burst nuclear detonation above a city with a population of 2.8 million during the day time when many people from outlying areas would be in the city working or shopping.

Ground Zero to Two Miles:
Within 1/1000th of a second, a fireball would form enveloping downtown and reaching out for two miles in every direction from ground zero, the point where the bomb went off. Temperatures would rise to 20 million degrees Fahrenheit, and everything--buildings, trees, cars, and people--would be vaporized.

Two Miles to Four Miles from Ground Zero:
Out to a distance of 4 miles, the blast would produce pressures of 25 pounds per square inch and winds in excess of 650 miles per hour. These titanic forces would rip buildings apart and level everything, including reinforced concrete and steel structures. Even deep underground bomb shelters would be crushed.

Four Miles to Ten Miles from Ground Zero:
As far as six miles from the center of the explosion, the heat would vaporize automobile sheet metal. Glass would melt. Out to a distance of ten miles in all directions, the heat would still be intense enough to melt sheet metal. At this distance, the blast wave would create pressures of 7 to 10 pounds per square inch and winds of 200 miles per hour. Reinforced concrete buildings would be heavily damaged and all other buildings--masonry and wood frame--would be leveled.

Sixteen Miles from Ground Zero:
At a distance of 16 miles from the center, the heat would ignite all easily flammable materials--houses, paper, cloth, leaves, gasoline, heating fuel--starting hundreds of thousands of fires. Fanned by blast winds still in excess of 100 miles per hour, these fires would merge into a giant firestorm more than 30 miles across and covering 800 square miles. Everything within this entire area would be consumed by flames. Temperatures would rise to 1400 degrees Fahrenheit. The death rate would approach 100%.

Firestorms of this type, though on a smaller scale, developed in Hamburg and Dresden and in parts of Tokyo after conventional bombing attacks during World War II. The information gained from these experiences has particular relevance to the question of fallout shelters. In these earlier firestorms only those who left their bomb shelters had any chance of surviving. Those who remained in underground shelters were killed, roasted as their bunkers were turned into ovens and suffocated as the fires consumed all of the oxygen in the air.

Beyond Sixteen Miles:
At 21 miles from ground zero, the blast would still produce pressures of two pounds per square inch, enough to shatter glass windows and turn each of them into hundreds of lethal missiles flying outward from the center at 100 miles per hour. At 29 miles away from the center the heat would be so intense that all exposed skin, not protected by clothing, would suffer third degree burns. To a distance of 32 miles second degree burns. Even as far as 40 miles from ground zero anyone who turned to gaze at the sudden flash of light would be blinded by burns on the retina at the back of their eyes.

---

30 Kton Nuclear Explosion (Strategic Nuke)

---

74 Kton Nuclear Explosion (Tactical Nuke)

30 Kton Betty Depth Bomb B-7

---

300 Kton Nuclear Explosion (Strategic Nuke)

---

1000 Kton Nuclear Explosion (City Buster)

---

8900 Kton Nuclear Explosion (County Buster)

---

15000 Kton Nuclear Explosion ( !!!! )

The largest explosion ever conducted was 61,000 Kton, and the largest weapon ever stocked in the US arsnel was 52 Kton. Pictures of the explosions are difficult to come by.

[Alas]

So, to level Afganastan and then turn it into a sheet of glass, we ned what, about four of the 52,000 Kilo ton devices?

Nukem

[jimtorr]

The United States would be reneging on its pledge not to develop new nuclear weapons, and this would violate the spirit if not the letter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which are geared to the elimination of nuclear weapons, not the making of new ones.

In other words, we have never pledged not to develop new weapons. Most treaty signatories have developed new bombs and missiles, and some have even tested them. Why shouldn't we?

[Arthur McGowan]

You know what a millihelen is, don't you?

The amount of beauty sufficient to launch one ship.

[glock rocks]

Why shouldn't we?

zactly.

[Texaggie79]

What are the criss cross smoke patterns in the 2 ones near the top?

[eclectic]

52 Mton is what the doctor ordered ;-)

[Cachelot]

However, it is appropriate to talk in terms of megatons, not thousands of kilitons.

Ummm.. May I be the first to tell you that your nick is not in order, Gigahertz? Straighten out, man ;).

[Cobra64]

"Bunker busters, "Bunker busters, Now that is the solution, Ya-Hoo!" (sarcasm)

They have limited capability to "bust" through more than about 20 feet of concrete much less than thousands of feet of granite. Look at a topo map of Afghanistan. Those living in caves, the cave dwellers there don't live in dessert sand dunes with a slab of concrete over their heads (some might).

Bunker busters will have limited capabilty in Afghanistan from the enemy we were routing out in the Gulf War. This is different terrain... Rhetorical question: would a bunker buster be as effective on killing an enemy submarine submerged at 1,000 feet as a torpedo fired from one of our subs at a similar depth? If you disagree, then we don't need subs, just more BUNKER BUSTERS!

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Any footage of ultra small warheads designed for howitzer shells? I know they used to exist, do they still lie around in a magazine somewhere?

[winged1]

There is method in this idea that goes unnoticed. If you've ever spelunked you'd know that caves are the result of water erosion and their tunnels always bend and turn. Therefore flying a nuke into a cave would still result in it's exploding within a few yards. However, the resulting explosion and instantaneous pressure increase would be felt within the entire cave system, rendering it's occupants deaf or dead. Possibly blowing them clean out the other end. This effect can also be experienced with conventional warheads and I am immediately herewith applying for copywrite and patent rights to the idea. Pentagon - are you listening ?

[Cachelot]

Bunker busters will have limited capabilty in Afghanistan

Yes, perhaps. How about just laying down something extremely persistent around all the entrances and let them starve?

[vannrox]

Q: Can nuclear explosions cause earthquakes?

A: On January 19, 1968, a thermonuclear test, codenamed Faultless, took place in the Central Nevada Supplemental Test Area. The codename turned out to be a poor choice of words because a fresh fault rupture some 1200 meters long was produced. Seismographic records showed that the seismic waves produced by the fault movement were much less energetic than those produced directly by the nuclear explosion.

Analysis of local seismic recordings (within a couple of miles) of nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site shows that some tectonic stress is released simultaneously with the explosion. Analysis of the seismic wavefield generated by the blast shows the source can be characterized as 70-80 percent dilational (explosive-like) and 20-30 percent deviatoric (earthquake-like). The rock in the vicinity of the thermonuclear device is shattered by the passage of the explosions shock wave. This releases the elastic strain energy that was stored in the rock and adds an earthquake-like component to the seismic wavefield. The possibility of large Nevada Test Site nuclear explosions triggering damaging earthquakes in California was publicly raised in 1969. As a test of this possibility, rate of earthquake occurrence in northern California (magnitude 3.5 and larger) and the known times of the six largest thermonuclear tests (1965-1969) were plotted and it was obvious that no peaks in the seismicity occur at the times of the explosions. This is in agreement with theoretical calculations that transient strain from underground thermonuclear explosions is not sufficiently large to trigger fault rupture at distances beyond a few tens of kilometers from the shot point.

The Indian and Pakastani test sites are approximately 1000 km from the recent Afghanistan earthquake epicenter. The question that has been asked is whether or not the occurrence of these nuclear tests influenced the occurrence of the large earthquake in Afghanistan. The most direct cause-effect relationship is that the passage of the seismic waves, generated by the thermonuclear explosion, through the epicentral region in Afghanistan somehow triggered the earthquake. For example, following the occurrence of the magnitude 7.3 Landers earthquake in southern California on June 28, 1992, the rate of seismicity in several seismically active regions in the western US, as far as 1250 km from the epicenter, abruptly increased coincident with the passage of the earthquake generated seismic wavefield through each site. The abrupt increases in seismicity occurred primarily in regions of geothermal activity and recent volcanism. The mechanism by which this occurred remains unknown. The Afghanistan earthquake occurred at 06:22:28 UT on May 30, 1998 and the thermonuclear test most closely associated in time occurred at 06:55 UT or after the occurrence of the earthquake. The other nuclear tests occurred 2-20 days before the earthquake.

The elastic strains induced in the epicentral region by the passage of the seismic wavefield generated by the largest of the nuclear tests, the May 11 Indian test with an estimated yield of 40 kilotons, is about 100 times smaller than the strains induced by the Earth's semi-diurnal (12 hour) tides that are produced by the gravitational fields of the Moon and the Sun. If small nuclear tests could trigger an earthquake at a distance of 1000 km, equivalent-sized earthquakes, which occur globally at a rate of several per day, would also be expected to trigger earthquakes. No such triggering has been observed. Thus there is no evidence of a causal connection between the nuclear testing and the large earthquake in Afghanistan and it is pure coincidence that they occurred near in time and location.

One last point. The largest underground thermonuclear tests conducted by the US were detonated in Amchitka at the western end of the Aleutian Islands and the largest of these was the 5 megaton codename Cannikin test which occurred on November 6, 1971. Cannikin had a body wave magnitude of 6.9 and it did not trigger any earthquakes in the seismically active Aleutian Islands. Suggested reading: "Nuclear Explosions and Earthquake, the Parted Veil", by Bruce A. Bolt, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1976.

[Cobra64]

Not sure where you total pro-nuke guys are coming from. Atmospheric detonation of these devices would cause nuclear fallout which would kill most of Asia, and drift over the Pacific ocean and wipe out most of America. Nice solution, huh? Read through the articles above. Again, I say, if we want to use nukes, we should use "underground testing" on the enemy "living underground in caves." The caves close up with nuclear fission fallout. Please think through what you're proposing. I'm trying.

[vannrox]

One MILLION people in Iran were killed by Saddam's Iraq. He used SMALLPOX, ANTHRAX and EBOLA. Are we going to wait until that happens here?

[vannrox]

You are wrong. Not "atmospheric" detonation, but rather "ground" detonation would cause fallout of sufficient density to warrant the concerns that you raised. War is HECK. But if you are in it, make it as harsh and quick as possible so it ends quickly...

[95Tarheel]

Actually, most of these very large devices were detonated above ground, ie "atmospheric", and we didn't all die. The islands where we detonated bombs are much closer than Afghanistan, and the Soviet test range where the largest device ever used was detonated is probably about as close as Afghanistan is to us. Regardless, the size of the explosion does not correlate all that well with the amount of radioactive fallout.