AstroPax: 3 questions for you...

[Gripen]

Nuclear weapons will NOT be used in a strike against Iran. Nor will the B61 or any derivative thereof.

It would be most likely done with GBU-15, GBU-24, or AGM-130 with a BLU-118 penetrating warhead from an F-15E. Total destruction of the facilities is not needed, only targeting key nodes such as centrifuge facilities. Studies have shown the BLU-118 capable of this. Trying to find that study now....

[Gripen]

edit to above-
Suppose it could also be a GBU-28 fitted with a BLU-113 delivered by a B-2. Not sure the exact penetration of either, but they could both reach 100 feet underground and 20 feet of reinforced concrete.

[AstroPax]

I'm not saying I'm right about the Ruskie's kill-NORAD plan, but I imagine they had some special RVs lined up.

They would park boomers off of the east and west coast resulting in extremely short SLBM warning times.

They could have taken out most of the BMEWS, PAVE PAWS, and Cobra Dane sites very quickly...with little warning...leaving NORAD blind, for the most part.

NORAD wasn't considered "survivable" (especially once the USSR deployed the SS-24). That's what Nightwatch (NEACP/NAOC), Looking Glass, and the various ALCC's were for...AKA PACCS...Post Attack Command and Control System.

But yeah, back then, I suppose Colorado Springs or Omaha is about the last place I would have wanted to be in the event of WWIII.

-Astro

[Cliff Huckable]

They would park boomers off of the east and west coast resulting in extremely short SLBM warning times.

They could have taken out most of the BMEWS, PAVE PAWS, and Cobra Dane sites very quickly...with little warning...leaving NORAD blind, for the most part.

NORAD wasn't considered "survivable" (especially once the USSR deployed the SS-24). That's what Nightwatch (NEACP/NAOC), Looking Glass, and the various ALCC's were for...AKA PACCS...Post Attack Command and Control System.

But yeah, back then, I suppose Colorado Springs or Omaha is about the last place I would have wanted to be in the event of WWIII.

-Astro

*ahem* ...to say nothing of North Bay, Ontario, Canada. Eh? *ahem*

[Cliff Huckable]

What? Noriega lost the 1989 national election to Guillermo Endara, and then he "nullified" the election and maintained his power by force. He was severely unpopular among Panamanians. How can you say we were not concerned about the Panamanians?



Of course there was short-term looting. What the hell do you expect during an invasion?

When was the last time you were in Panama?

The Panama invasion was a complete and total success. They have a thriving and growing economy. Real Estate is booming.

We have never turned our backs on Panama.

And control of the canal? What the hell are you talking about? One of the main reasons for the invasion was to protect the integrity of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties.

-Astro

Well, if you can predict there'll be looting after an invasion why couldn't your leaders figure that out? They said they hadn't thought of it, or planned for it. As you said, predicting it would happen is easy - so why wasn't it planned for? And why would 60 plaintiffs, including major international companies like Samsung Electronics, file a lawsuit against the US Government, if it was "a complete and total success"?

As for the treaties, you're making my point for me. Thanks. If you're confused by that, take a look at the The Treaty of Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Canal.

Unpopular foriegn leaders are no justification for US military action. The list of brutal dictators and horrible leaders who stomp on their own people is far far longer than the list of brutal dictators and horrible leaders the US has decided fight. Was the motivation in any of those cases to help the people of said country, or to protect and further American interests?
Please.

[Jer]

Cliff - there's a middle ground between spleen and ideal. You really have to find it before posting again.

[P_McPoser]

You can calculate with some accuracy the nuclear cratering effects, shapes, and sizes especially if you know the soil composition. However, digging a hole is not the only goal. Multiple shockwaves will... progressively weaken things. Cushioning effect... that's something I don't know much about but logically I agree it would make some sense, but would it matter much? I kind of doubt it...

A mining engineer could probably answer that question a lot better than me

Hello? Someone say something? Oh...There are plenty of studies out there that came out of the "peaceful nuclear explosions" research in the seventies related to massive in-situ fracturing of ore bodies to allow for solution mining on massive scales. Very similar to the theory behind sub-surface facility destruction. Of course most of these simulations (and real life, instrumented sub-surface tests) were done, well, deep subsurface---an unrealistic scenario in the attack of a hardened enemy target.

I attended a advanced geotechnical engineering course about 2 years ago where one of the instructors was a researcher at LLL working on the "effects of near surface high yield explosions on deep mined facilities." He had some animations of discrete element analysis on the scenario. It was really fucking cool. He would not give us copies.