Nuclear Bunker Buster

[saycheese]

from the info ive got, bush has demanded and received permission to use nuclear bunker busters.

and here is a biased educational video, make what you can out of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CYYkFU_GTM

edit: actually, i dont think theres gonna be a debate unless i can find some info which supports this weapons. some mod can move it into the lens section, but else, close it if u want.

[Wolfman Walt]

While I'm not so sure what exactly we're supposed to debate about, I would like to see something abit more then a video that consists of drawings. I'd also like to know why bring this up when the RNEP project hasn't received funding since 2005 and is effectively cancelled.

[saycheese]

nope, like i said. i saw some info that indicated that bush has demanded and recieved permission to use these. its not exactly reliable info, but i wouldnt dismiss it so quick either.

[Wolfman Walt]

Well in the wikipedia article I gave you, there was some renewed interest in it for the Afghani war, but it was dropped again in 2005 where it's effectively cancelled. Next, I doubt the international community would allow us to use it, being that it's a nuclear weapon.

Honestly, I think our current bunker busters are good enough.

[saycheese]

to be honest, i think the current BB does a better job than RNEP, thats why i wanted this topic to be moved to lens or closed.

[p0rkfri3drice]

ive heard about this bunker buster. it was partially designed by a viet woman, if i am talkin about the right bunker buster. i didnt know any of these facts, and im not sure if they are true, for i have heard good things from this bunker buster. it might be bcuz it came from the vietnamese community, supporting the viet woman engineer. plus, the creaters of the video seemed bias themselves, also. but if these claims are facts, i completely disagree with the idea of using them. i dont see why its gotta be nuclear. just a large explosion would be of good use. if these claims are true, i am sure anyone would disagree for the use of them and i am sure it wont be passed.

[Tokoyami]

Well see, if the demo was made off a pentagon simulation, then i would think that they'd find the exact location of the bunker, before using such a weapon. I also dont beleive that the weapon would "drill only a few meters underground". And if thats all its capable of, and we know this, we should upgrade to sumthin that can go alot farther underground.

But im no scientist

[dragoneyes001]

nuclear bunker busters are obsolete.

they have some that will penetrate quite well into the ground before exploding and with payloads that are into the thousands of tons of TNT force they really don't need nukes.

[p0rkfri3drice]

that sounds much better than nuclear bunker busters. cuz the "nuclear" part is just pointless with "bunker buster." if the goal is to bust underground bunkers, they should keep concentrated on the goal.

[saycheese]

hunh..

* a BLU-113 Super Penetrator can penetrate 6m of concrete or 100ft of earth(depends on the soil), which is the highest penetration for a bunker buster
* a nuclear bunker buster with uranium is heavier, and is likely to penetrate deeper, and with the shockwave/earthquake it could take out all bunkers underground around the region.
*The Bush administration removed its request for funding of the weapon in October 2005. Additionally, US Senator Pete Domenici announced funding for the nuclear bunker-buster has been dropped from the Department of Energy's fiscal 2006 budget at the department's request.

it looks interesting, and i see why us want to develop this. but even if they do develop it, i doubt they can use it without some really good excuse.

[p0rkfri3drice]

ohhh. i see. yeah.. that makes sense then. but i agree with you. with the position they are at now, "weapons of mass destruction" just wont cut it. there is no reason that the US could be allowed to start makin and droppin nukes, for we are currently against that.

[dragoneyes001]

the amount of uranium in a warhead is not going to make it dig any deeper.

besides the last bunker buster that they tested had one hell of a punch for a conventional bomb.

[saycheese]

the warhead is not at the head of the missle, but it does make it much more heavier. they use depleted uranium shells coz its heavy and has armor penetrating properties(which dosnt apply here). and since its heavier, it hits the ground at a faster speed, which can potentially penetrate deeper, along with the fact that there is an artificial earthquake which follows. i think if it is developed, its use really, is just to sit there and scare the crap outa the enemies that way. anywya, i dont think there is a mod for debates section now and gonna go pm one to get this thread moved.

[Jasper]

Wrong Section, Moved to Lens section.