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

It was cussed and dis-cussed 3 months ago on the US "news" channels. It has
never been "suppressed" just not that big a deal. 30 years ago I was with an
Artillery unit that had tactical nukes close enough to deploy and use in
case the Soviet sent tanks through the Fulda Gap. Those same tactical
warheads could as easily have been placed in the tube and dropped onto a
bunker complex just like the "Bunker Buster" GBU-28.

The Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) is a special weapon developed for
penetrating hardened Iraqi command centers located deep underground. The
GBU-28 is a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munition that uses a
4,400-pound penetrating warhead. The bombs are modified Army artillery
tubes, weigh 4,637 pounds, and contain 630 pounds of high explosives. They
are fitted with GBU-27 LGB kits, 14.5 inches in diameter and almost 19 feet
long. The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator and then the
munition guides to a spot of laser energy reflected from the target.

The GBU 28 "Bunker Buster" was put together in record time to support
targeting of the Iraqi hardened command bunker by adapting existing
materiel. The GBU-28 was not even in the early stages of research when
Kuwait was invaded. The USAF asked industry for ideas in the week after
combat operations started. Work on the bomb was conducted in research
laboratories including the the Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions
Directorate located at Eglin AFB, Florida and the Watervliet Armory in New
York. The bomb was fabricated starting on 1 February, using surplus 8-inch
artillery tubes as bomb casings because of their strength and weight. The
official go-ahead for the project was issued on 14 February, and explosives
for the initial units were hand-loaded by laboratory personnel into a bomb
body that was partially buried upright in the ground. The first two units
were delivered to the USAF on 16 and 17 February, and the first flight to
test the guidance software and fin configuration was conducted on 20
February. These tests were successful and the program proceeded with a
contract let on 22 February. A sled test on 26 February proved that the bomb
could penetrate over 20 feet of concrete, while an earlier flight test had
demonstrated the bomb's ability to penetrate more than 100 feet of earth.
The first two operational bombs were delivered to the theater on 27
February.

The Air Force produced a limited quantity of the GBU-28 during Operation
Desert Storm to attack multi-layered, hardened underground targets. Only two
of these weapons were dropped in Desert Storm, both by F-111Fs. One weapon
hit its precise aimpoint, and the onboard aircraft video recorder displayed
an outpouring of smoke from an entrance way approximately 6 seconds after
impact. After Operation Desert Storm, the Air Force incorporated some
modifications, and further tested the munition. The Fy1997 budget request
contained $18.4 million to procure 161 GBU-28 hard target penetrator bombs.
For a visual depiction of how the GBU-28 works view the grapic produced by
Bob Sherman and USA Today on-line.


--


Don Thompson

Ex ROMAD


"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

"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



It hasn't been supressed, I've seen it mentioned in several
places. Most weapon systems are constantly being
redesigned to meet the latest threat. No big deal.

As for "recreational creation of nuclear devices",
the first reaction (no pun intended) of most people,
once they understand how they work, is to wonder
why everyone who wants one hasn't built one.
They are that simple.

And lo, it came about, that on Fri, 8 Aug 2003 19:39:35 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking , "Ken Finney" was
inspired to utter:


It hasn't been supressed, I've seen it mentioned in several
places. Most weapon systems are constantly being
redesigned to meet the latest threat. No big deal.

As for "recreational creation of nuclear devices",
the first reaction (no pun intended) of most people,
once they understand how they work, is to wonder
why everyone who wants one hasn't built one.
They are that simple.

Its getting the stock materials that's the bottle neck. The rest of it is
just precision machining, and some fussy electronics.

Typical nerd stuff.

tschus
pyotr


pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

Well, I saw the story on the BEEB last (?) night. I think one US network
also carried it. Nothing on the US nets about Africa and what is
happening there. Now that the US has sent in troops, we probably will
have "embedded" coverage on Africa (more newspeople than troops).

Regards,

Marv

Dave Mundt wrote:
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

"Marv Soloff" wrote in message
...
Well, I saw the story on the BEEB last (?) night. I think one US network
also carried it. Nothing on the US nets about Africa and what is
happening there. Now that the US has sent in troops, we probably will
have "embedded" coverage on Africa (more newspeople than troops).

Regards,

Marv

Dave Mundt wrote:
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



This story was covered by the NY Times in last Sunday's "Week In Review"
("Facing a Second Nuclear Age").

The proposed bombs are bunker-busters, which the BBC apparently didn't
mention.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

"Ed Huntress" wrote in news:aYUYa.15948
:

Dave Mundt wrote:
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



This story was covered by the NY Times in last Sunday's "Week In
Review"
("Facing a Second Nuclear Age").

The proposed bombs are bunker-busters, which the BBC apparently didn't
mention.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)


Didn't mention? look at the link again, it's there at least five times. I
saw the BBC item in the UK and the opening line was ' nuclear bunker
busters'. or should that have been nucular (sp?).....

On the original post, if you spend anytime travelling outside the US and
see other countries news coverage you quickly realise that our US
coverage is usually;

Produced by the networks for viewing figures, sensationalism and over
emphasis rules, very little factual content.

Appears to assume the viewer has a blood temperature IQ

Rarely covers international events, and if they do its never a neutral
viewpoint.



While I can appreciate a certain backlash by posters against non US news
agencies, such as the BBC in these threads it might be worth considering
that the news as received here is minimal in content and often factually
very different from the rest of the world.

For example, the BBC world news, presented in the networks as a thirty
minute show which with Ad's makes about 117 mins of programming is fourty
uninterrupted minuites in other countries.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...

This story was covered by the NY Times in last Sunday's "Week In
Review"
("Facing a Second Nuclear Age").

The proposed bombs are bunker-busters, which the BBC apparently didn't
mention.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)


Didn't mention? look at the link again, it's there at least five times. I
saw the BBC item in the UK and the opening line was ' nuclear bunker
busters'. or should that have been nucular (sp?).....

Sheesh, I breezed over it too quickly. And if you start saying "nucular,"
we'll burn our OEDs. g


On the original post, if you spend anytime travelling outside the US and
see other countries news coverage you quickly realise that our US
coverage is usually;

Produced by the networks for viewing figures, sensationalism and over
emphasis rules, very little factual content.

Appears to assume the viewer has a blood temperature IQ

Rarely covers international events, and if they do its never a neutral
viewpoint.

There's some truth in that regarding broadcast coverage. It's not the case
at all with our major newspapers, however.

I read the BBC online, The Guardian, the Toronto Star, The Wall Street
Journal ($), The New York Times, and The Washington Post every day. My
collection is about the size of those of a lot of other journalists and
writers. I also read the rips of AP and Reuters. I often watch or listen to
the BBC's world coverage on cable or radio. My total time spent with all of
it is around three hours.

While I can appreciate a certain backlash by posters against non US news
agencies, such as the BBC in these threads it might be worth considering
that the news as received here is minimal in content and often factually
very different from the rest of the world.

For example, the BBC world news, presented in the networks as a thirty
minute show which with Ad's makes about 117 mins of programming is fourty
uninterrupted minuites in other countries.

The BBC's network coverage in the US, and their online coverage, is pretty
thin these days. I hope their home service has more depth.

Ed Huntress

They categorized them as "mini-nukes - 5KT range - and had a graphic of
destroying a bunker. Still going underground to get Saddam.

Regards,

Marv

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Marv Soloff" wrote in message
...

Well, I saw the story on the BEEB last (?) night. I think one US network
also carried it. Nothing on the US nets about Africa and what is
happening there. Now that the US has sent in troops, we probably will
have "embedded" coverage on Africa (more newspeople than troops).

Regards,

Marv

Dave Mundt wrote:

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




This story was covered by the NY Times in last Sunday's "Week In Review"
("Facing a Second Nuclear Age").

The proposed bombs are bunker-busters, which the BBC apparently didn't
mention.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)

And lo, it came about, that on Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:06:19 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking , Marv Soloff was inspired
to utter:

They categorized them as "mini-nukes - 5KT range - and had a graphic of
destroying a bunker. Still going underground to get Saddam.

Not just Saddam, but everyone else who watch the coverage of Gulf War I and
realized the Americans had some pretty neat weapons which can really ruin your
day. So they've been putting things further underground.

Like the Libyan chemical weapons factory built in a mountain. (Vive
France!)

Or the North Korean Peace and Prosperity devices they don't have, in the
bunkers they don't have, from the nuclear enrichment program they don't have.
We know they don't have it because Jimmy & Bubba both said the North Koreans
had agreed not to make any more.

Hey, don't worry, they're with the Government and they're here to help us.


tschus
pyotr


--
pyotr filipivich
The cliche is that history rarely repeats herself. Usually she just
lets fly with a frying pan and yells "Why weren't you listening
the first time!?"

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:11:08 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:

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

I thought the last tests where against the treaty and they did them
anyhow. When was that? Maybe Dad's era and now son wants to play
nuke tests also , like Iraq. And they will say they are at least
under ground without mentioning the hole right behind it , thus making
it an above ground test to me.

"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.

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 12:44:05 -0400, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:

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.

I agree, it really doesn't make much sense. It would seem to me that
it would be better to develop a system to get deeper penetration from
what we already have.

John

Please note that my return address is wrong due to the amount of junk email I get.
So please respond to this message through the newsgroup.

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 12:44:05 -0400, "Peter Reilley"
wrote:


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.

A bunker buster, even with a 700lb core charge, has a very limited
kill range. If one is dropped into a well designed tunnel complex, it
may not kill or damage the entire complex, nor the folks within it.
This is simple physics and is understood by anyone engineering a
bunker complex.

A warhead of 700lbs, versus a warhead of 5,000 Tons (5kt = explosive
force of 10,000 lbs of explosive is the difference. Not to mention the
additional heat and pressure generated by our nuke bunker buster. The
rads are totally besides the point.

As to the comment, about a nuke set off above ground, being the same
as it being detonated underground inside or near the
complex..bull****. One has to increase the tonnage of the nuke by
orders of magnitude to get damage deep in a well designed complex.

Nukes are NOT magic death rays. They are simply really really big
chemical bombs in a very small package.

A properly designed undergound nuke will release far smaller amounts
of radionucleids than one that is detonated on the surface. The
blast/overpressure pulse is the bunker killer, not the radiation, else
one could simply detonate a neutron device above the target and kill
it. That simply is not possible. 3' of dirt will stop a lot of
radiation, 300 feet, will stop a whole bunch.

A chemical bomb is simply a point weapon. A nuke is no more and no
less a point weapon. But the same size package has a much larger
point..

Gunner

"What do you call someone in possesion of all the facts? Paranoid.-William Burroughs

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 17:11:08 GMT, (Dave Mundt) wrote:
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?

The only conclusion I can draw from this article is that
the mail must be very slow to Britain, or that BBC writers
read very slowly.

I first saw the mini-nuke story in the October 2002 issue
of Popular Mechanics (cover story). The story was also in
the January 2003 issue of Popular Science, and it has
been covered since then in Time, Newsweek, and an
assortment of other news magazines in the US.

BTW, one of the architects of this new generation of
bunker busters noted that Congress' 1994 prohibition
on development of new nukes (not a treaty, just a
Congressional resolution) would mean that no *new*
nukes would be developed. Instead, they'd simply use
the atomic triggers from some of the 10,000 or so
thermonuclear weapons being dismantled as part
of the Salt agreements with the Russians.

Those triggers are the right size and yield for the
project, and they're already at hand, and fully tested.
The only part of the project requiring testing are the
penetrators, and those can be tested without active
nuclear material.

Gary