"Dave Mundt" wrote in message
...
Greetings and Salutations.
Take a gander at this story from
the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2779069.stm

I suppose it is not totally off topic,
as it does involve some fairly intricate metalwork.
However, if any of y'all are involved in the
recreational creation of nuclear devices, I REALLY
want to know...mainly so I can consider moving
a BIT further away (*smile*)
In any case, here is a story with meat
and serious implications for America, and, it
receives NO publicity, and no discussion. Instead
we are bombarded by tedious discussions about relatively
trivial issues - Kobe, gay marriage, "Governer Arnold",
etc.
My question is this: Is this story suppressed
because the news organizations have finally given up
and admitted they are no different from Jerry Springer
in the sort of program they produce, or, is our government
using the questionable powers of the Patriot Act and other
leverage to keep the sheeple from hearing something
disturbing?
To quote Bill O'Reilly: "We'll let the audience
decide".
Regards
Dave Mundt

Bunker busting nukes present a bunch of interesting problems; First
are the engineering aspects.

How do you make a nuclear device that is robust enough that it does
not mechanically distort as the penetrator is breaking through thick
concrete. A nuclear war head is quite delicate. An implosion device
must compress the fissile material quite evenly or it will not reach
critical mass. If the explosive charges are not fired properly or
the G force has distorted the device then a nuclear reaction will not
innate.

A gun type device is probably less sensitive to the G force acting on
the fissile material since it is mostly solid. The gun mechanism, however,
must withstand the G force and remain operable.

Bunker buster nukes will probably require a lot of testing. Some of
that testing will have to be done with real fissile material. I have
no doubt that this can be accomplished.

This brings us to testing; How do you test such a device? The only
realistic way is to drop it from a plane. The hope is that it will
penetrate deep enough to contain the radioactive fallout. Only testing
will know for sure.

This brings to it's military uses; When would you use such a thing.
The idea is to attack targets that are deeply buried. Obviously
such a device can penetrate no deeper than current penetrating weapons.
The penetration technology is no different. The question is; does the
few tens of feet closer placement of the warhead to the ultimate target
gain you very much? A similar warhead on the surface will probably
also destroy the target. The only difference being the amount of radiation
released.

Now the political issues: We will have to break a lot of long standing
treaties to do this. We will have to do a lot of open air testing. Some
tests will likely succeed with no radiation released. Certainly some
will be disasters with a lot of radiation released. Even the earliest
test bans, the ones against open air testing, will have to be breached.
Of course other countries will follow the same course. We will have
brought back the era of open air testing.

When would we use it? The current penetrators can attack most military
bunkers. If an enemy knew that were developing such a device it is
quite easily design bunkers that cannot be attacked. For example; a
bunker that has a one mile long entrance tunnel. Such a bunker need not
be very deep. The only requirement is that it's actual position be secret.
Such a bunker built under a city would be quite secure.

Ultimately such a weapon makes little sense. The down sides are far
worse than the upside. Militarily it has little use since it is so easily
defeated. Politically it is a disaster.

Pete.