
	Where results make sense

Topic: Bunker buster

Related Topics

Blockbuster bomb

Strategic bombing

Grand Slam bomb

Mark 84 bomb

Nuclear bunker buster

Bunker

V1 rocket

Barnes Wallis

Per Albin Line

First Gulf War

Guidance system

List of missiles

Siegfried Line

Possible death of Saddam Hussein

Richter Magnitude Scale

In the News (Sun 8 Nov 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	Buried Truths: Debunking the Nuclear "Bunker Buster" BENJAMIN PHELAN / Harper's Magazine v.309, n.1855, ... (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
		If the bunker housed weapons of mass destruction, studies have shown that a canister of, say, mustard gas could be insulated from the heat of the blast by a few meters of earth, and thereby escape being vaporized.
		What today is passed off as deterrence by proponents of low-yield bunker busters and the RNEP is not, as it once was, the demonstrable ability of nuclear weapons to prevent nuclear war but the unproven power of unworkable weapons to bully other countries into abjuring any action at all deemed offensive by the United States.
		The technology of bunker busters may yet be improved, but only slightly; and what advances can be made against the hard limits of earth penetration are not enough to war-rant the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to realize them.
	www.mindfully.org /Nucs/2004/Bunker-Buster-Phelan1dec04.htm (1880 words)

	Actions
		Supporters argue that the bunker buster is needed to attack hard and deeply buried targets (such as leadership bunkers or WMD production facilities) in countries of concern, thereby deterring or defeating such nations.
		The bunker buster would lower the threshold for use of nuclear weapons and prompt other nations to develop nuclear weapons to deter U.S. attack.
		The bunker buster is regarded as a "tactical" nuclear weapon.
	www.oregonpsr.org /actionalerts/bunkerbusteralert.htm (583 words)

	Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) Bunker Buster - Smart Weapons (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
		This "bunker buster" was required for special targets during the Desert Storm conflict and was designed, fabricated and loaded in record time.
		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 official go-ahead for the project was issued on 14 February 1991, and explosives for the initial units were hand-loaded by laboratory personnel into a bomb body that was partially buried upright in the ground outside the laboratory in New York.
	www.globalsecurity.org /military/systems/munitions/gbu-28.htm (1885 words)

	Bunker buster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		A bunker buster is a bomb designed to penetrate hardened targets or targets buried deep underground.
		Though these bombs might be thought of as 'bunker busters' today, in fact the original 'earthquake' theory was more complex and subtle than simply penetrating a hardened surface.
		Modern bunker busters may use the traditional fuze, but some also include a microphone and microcontroller.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Bunker_buster (883 words)

	BBC NEWS \| World \| Americas \| Factfile: Bunker buster bombs
		The US Air Force's BLU-113 "bunker buster" warhead was originally developed in a hurry during the 1991 Gulf War to attack fortified Iraqi command centres deep underground.
		Bunker busters were developed extremely quickly during the air campaign in the Gulf War in 1991 after it became clear that existing weapons were proving ineffective against underground targets.
		The first bunker buster was built on 1 February 1991 using surplus 8-inch artillery tubes as the main part of the weapon.
	news.bbc.co.uk /1/hi/world/americas/2895081.stm (412 words)

	Howstuffworks "How Bunker Busters Work"
		One way to make a bunker buster heavier while maintaining a narrow cross-sectional area is to use a metal that is heavier than steel.
		The idea is to marry a small nuclear bomb with a penetrating bomb casing to create a weapon that can penetrate deep into the ground and then explode with nuclear force.
		The B61-11, available since 1997, is the current state of the art in the area of nuclear bunker busters.
	science.howstuffworks.com /bunker-buster.htm (1592 words)

	Iraq & U.S. Bunker-Buster Nuclear Weapons - CDI Nuclear Issues
		Powerful administration proponents often characterize their position as choosing a lesser evil: Either develop the nuclear bunker killers or let Hussein and his cronies hide safely underground with their weapons.
		Command and control bunkers can be effectively rendered useless by strikes against their vulnerable above-ground communications stations.
		It is simply not necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in handling the bunker threat.
	www.cdi.org /nuclear/bunker-busters.cfm (614 words)

	Bunker buster bombs
		Bunker busters are aimed at destroying facilities located underground.
		This latest version of the “bunker buster” uses the Global Positioning System for guidance so that it can be dropped with accuracy at higher altitudes in foul weather.
		Bunker busters of either type are new techn ologies, so there's so inherent uncertainly about them.
	journals.aol.com /bmiller224/OldHickorysWeblog/entries/2006/05/23/bunker-buster-bombs/3886 (2239 words)

	Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Editorials / Bunker buster bust
		In the Pentagon, such bombs are known as ''robust nuclear earth penetrators," or ''bunker busters." Despite past refusals by Congress to fund research on them, the Defense Department is again asking for $8 million.
		Proponents of bunker busters have hoped that weapons designers could produce bombs that could penetrate deep into rock or reinforced concrete before unleashing their nuclear charge.
		But the report concludes that, while many deeply buried targets are beyond the reach of conventional weapons and could be destroyed by nuclear weapons, the nuke bunker busters could not go so deep that their effects would be contained underground.
	www.boston.com /news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/05/08/bunker_buster_bust (520 words)

	Senator Feinstein Calls for the Elimination of Nuclear Bunker Buster Funding
		The point is, the deeper the bunker, the larger the nuclear blast must be, and the greater the amount of nuclear fallout will be.
		So once again, the bottom line is that a bunker buster cannot penetrate into the earth deep enough to avoid massive casualties, and there would be the spewing of millions of cubic feet of radioactive materials into the atmosphere.
		Secondly, a study will not change the conclusions of the National Academies of Sciences report: It is not possible to develop a nuclear bunker buster that can burrow deep enough into the earth to contain massive amounts of radioactivity fallout.
	feinstein.senate.gov /05releases/r-rnep-dodauth.htm (3547 words)

	Halfbakery: Bunker Buster 2
		Maybe the first bomb would be the bunker buster, and right behind it (on a tether) would be the capsule full of Bunkernauts.
		The bunker buster would be smaller and more economical as it only needs to open a hole for the Bunkernauts.
		Bunker buster bombs are usually long and thin, so that they can pack lots of mass behind a small cross-section.
	www.halfbakery.com /idea/Bunker_20Buster_202 (485 words)

	Nuclear bunker buster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		Another school of thought on nuclear bunker busters is using a light penetrator to travel 15 to 30 meters through shielding, and detonate a nuclear charge there.
		The main criticism of Nuclear bunker busters is nuclear fallout and nuclear proliferation.
		The purpose of an earth-penetrating nuclear "bunker buster" is to reduce the required yield needed to ensure the destruction of the target by coupling the explosion to the ground, yielding a shock wave similar to an earthquake.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster (1663 words)

	Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs againt Iran: Madness (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
		The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear “bunker busters” in Iran in a preemptive strike.
		The “bunker buster” is a cute sounding name for a nuclear horror.
		Firing der Bush’s bunker busters in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter, will vaporize hundreds of thousands of tons of earth, water and rock and send this radioactive soup downwind to kill and sicken whole populations.
	www.propagandamatrix.com /articles/march2006/180306_b_Madness.htm (1281 words)

	WAND - Women's Action for New Directions
		• Supporters argue that the bunker buster is needed to attack hard and deeply buried targets (such as leadership bunkers or WMD production facilities) in countries of concern, thereby deterring or defeating such nations.
		The bunker buster would have a yield 60-100 times that of the Hiroshima bomb, which was 15 kilotons.
		The new bunker buster request is $8.5 million, and the Department of Energy plans to spend almost half a billion dollars on it over the next few years.
	www.wand.org /issuesact/bunkerbusterinfo.htm (1393 words)

	Nuclear Bunker Buster: No Bang for the Buck
		The nuclear bunker buster, otherwise termed the 'Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator,' has been one of the cornerstones of a nuclear weapons policy that is taking us away from a sane arms control policy.
		Second, scientists have concluded that a nuclear bunker buster cannot penetrate deep enough into the ground to contain all of the radiation from the explosion.
		Our Senators should oppose researching the nuclear bunker buster by voting for amendments in the energy and water appropriations bill S 1424 that would cut the $15 million set aside for it along with other amendments blocking new nuclear weapons development.
	www.commondreams.org /views03/0909-14.htm (766 words)

	The Trouble with Bunker Busters
		The RNEP is intended to generate a strong seismic shock wave capable of crushing hardened underground bunkers within about 1,000 feet of the explosion, but much deeper bunkers can be constructed using modern tunneling equipment.
		Very deep bunkers (or underground facilities spread out over a wide area) would be immune from such an attack.
		Because the United States is unlikely to know the precise location, size, and geometry of underground bunkers, a nuclear attack on a storage bunker containing chemical or biological agents could release those agents into the environment along with radioactive fallout (see Figure 2).
	www.ucsusa.org /publications/catalyst/bunkerbusters.html (924 words)

	Bunker Buster Demo Video (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
		I agree that there are a lot of other weapons which could more efficiently destroy this particular target, but if you demonstrate a bunker buster on a bunker, it doesn't make for a very good show.
		A bunker buster wouldn't do much to a city, because lets say it landed on, say, a street.
		Concievably, a weapon like this could punch through into a command bunker or somesuch, but it has to be dropped from a plane, and the USA has air superiority wherever it goes, so the terrorists would have no way to effectively deploy this weapon.
	www.metacafe.com /watch/27779/bunker_buster_demo (505 words)

	``The GBU-28 Bunker Buster''({\relax 1998 update based on earlier Australian Aviation article}.)
		Some reports suggested that up to forty such bunkers existed in the vicinity of Baghdad, to provide Saddam with the means of concealing up to several infantry divisions of loyal (rather than elite) Republican Guards and a large proportion of his critical command and control facilities.
		The options for a bunker buster were therefore narrowed down to three weapons, the HTOT with a 20 week timescale to deployment, an Upscaled BLU-109 available in 4-5 weeks and the Dense Penetrator BLU-109, available in 10 weeks.
		This smaller weapon was the mainstay of the Gulf War bunker and HAS busting effort, accounting for the lion’s share of the several hundred bunkers and shelters cracked during the air campaign.
	f-111.net /CarloKopp/gbu-28.htm (3928 words)

	deseretnews.com \| 'Bunker buster' report draws fire
		An American attack with a "bunker buster" nuclear weapon could cause "from hundreds to over a million" casualties, a report by the National Academy of Sciences concludes.
		Bunker busters — formal name: "nuclear earth-penetrators" — are weapons that would be able to slam into underground facilities.
		Experience and predictions indicate the bunker busters "cannot penetrate to depths required for total containment of the effects of a nuclear explosion," the study adds.
	deseretnews.com /dn/view/0,1249,600130520,00.html (486 words)

	reviewjournal.com -- News: Vote keeps 'bunker buster' alive
		The bunker buster would be used to destroy buried command centers or weapons depots.
		The National Nuclear Security Administration has said the bunker buster would be developed from weapons that have already been tested and, therefore, would not require any new tests at the Nevada Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
		Critics note estimated costs of the bunker buster study jumped from $7.5 million in this year's budget to $27.6 million requested for fiscal 2005.
	reviewjournal.com /lvrj_home/2004/Jun-16-Wed-2004/news/24113664.html (393 words)

	deseretnews.com \| Senate committee funds bunker-buster study
		Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, vowed to continue to fight to eliminate funding for a "new generation of nuclear weapons." He cited a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences that concluded that an American attack with a bunker buster could cause "from hundreds to over a million" casualties.
		Bunker busters, officially called "nuclear earth-penetrators," are weapons that would be able to slam into underground facilities.
		Although the bunker buster would be designed for underground warfare, Utahns may be nervous because in the past venting has occurred at the Nevada Test Site.
	deseretnews.com /dn/view/0,1249,600142394,00.html (405 words)

	[No title]
		denheer RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 3/26/2003 11:39:25 AM A better way is to have a conventional warhead delivered bij a missile flying mach 5 or up and with a hardenend head (tungsten/depleted uranium).
		denheer RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 4/4/2003 1:11:59 PM About 20.000 dollars per kg is quite expensive to get up in space if you ask me. If you want to have a re-entry weapon with double shielding (heat from re-entry and high impact of the bunker) this will be a heavy and costly dart.
		RE:Solution for Bunker Buster Nuke 2/7/2004 9:52:34 AM Numewrous studies on the subject have shown that in order for a "bunker busting nuke" to not contaminate the surrounding area, the required depth is prohibitively high and the required explosive yield prohibitively low.
	www.strategypage.com /militaryforums/387-43.aspx (2212 words)

	Nuclear "Bunker Buster" Update - FCNL Issues
		The funding issue for the nuclear “bunker buster” was finalized on October 25.
		Funding for the bunker buster has been zeroed out in conference committee the last two years, a sign of the low support that new nuclear weapons have in Congress.
		Funding for the nuclear “bunker buster” is also covered by the annual defense authorization bill.
	www.fcnl.org /issues/item.php?item_id=1552&issue_id=48 (363 words)

	20/20 Vision - Promoting Peace - Current Campaigns (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
		To make matters worse, the bunker buster would likely be aimed at countries that do not have nuclear weapons.
		Thankfully, with the help of alert citizens like you, many members of Congress have realized that the nuclear bunker buster is just not worth it.
		In July, the House of Representatives voted to cut funding for the bunker buster from $15 million to $5 million.
	www.2020vision.org /peace/p_bunkerbuster.html (523 words)

	Nuclear Bunker Busters Are Dangerous, Ineffective, and Unneeded (10/26/05) - Federation of American Scientists
		There was widespread confusion in the public and press about nuclear bunker busters (confusion that the Administration did little to correct).
		A remarkable number of reports conflated nuclear bunker busters with so-called “mini-nukes.” Putting aside for the moment that a “mini” nuclear weapon is defined as one with an explosive yield of five thousand tons of TNT, or one third the size of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, the bunker busters were genuinely gigantic bombs.
		Nuclear earth-penetrating bunker busters do not penetrate the earth very far and are not even very good at busting bunkers.
	www.fas.org /main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=401 (563 words)

	Bunker buster ready for test in Nevada desert - World - smh.com.au
		The bomb would be a conventional alternative to a nuclear weapon proposed by the Bush Administration, which has run into opposition on Capitol Hill.
		The Pentagon has been on the prowl to find funds for the research into the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator - better known as the bunker buster - after a US Nuclear Posture Review stated that no weapon in the Pentagon's arsenal could threaten a growing number of buried targets.
		Congress, however, has repeatedly refused to grant funding for a study on a nuclear bunker buster, instead directing money toward conventional alternatives.
	www.smh.com.au /news/world/bunker-buster-ready-for-test-in-nevada-desert/2006/03/31/1143441331987.html (687 words)

	The Kerry Spot on National Review Online
		By a mostly party-line vote of 214-204, the House last month supported spending $7.5 million on research into a new nuclear "bunker buster," the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.
		Richard Myers, in a May 2003 briefing, explained that a nuclear bunker buster could minimize the threat from biological or chemical weapons at an enemy site.
		A well-placed Washington Republican sees Kerry's stance on bunker busters as a political miscalculation, a move that will not add a single vote to his total, while giving Bush another way to paint him as weak on defense.
	www.nationalreview.com /kerry/kerry200406020904.asp (684 words)

	Senate Debate on Nuclear Bunker Buster Funding (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-13)
		It seems to me that if you build a 1-megaton nuclear weapon as a bunker buster you are going to bust a whole lot more than a bunker.
		If his point is the research for the bunker buster nuclear weapon was last year a first step, then let me suggest to you my amendment will withhold the money so we do not take the second step.
		Our job, it seems to me, is to say the only success we will be able to claim in the future is that we prevented the spread of nuclear weapons and prevented their use and, over a long period of time, began to reduce the number of nuclear weapons.
	www.ananuclear.org /SenateRNEP.html (9906 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)