Good news: Iran’s nuclear bunkers probably totally impenetrable
posted at 2:23 pm on April 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
For the moment, anyway:
I designed a 2”x2” concrete cube with a compressive strength of 16,000 psi [pounds per square inch] at 28-days, a relatively high strength as standard concrete is on the order of 3,000 psi, typically. Now, The University of Tehran made several cubes between 50,000 to 60,000 psi, and possible stronger! I thought the aggregate to be made from quartz, and I also remember some steel fibers in the mix. These cubes exploded at failure, finally damaging the compression machine on the third or fourth cube (that machine was substantial, made for much larger samples). So, keep in mind this is unreinforced concrete (save the steel fibers) at an early age. Concrete becomes stronger, sometimes by orders of magnitude, over time.
I’ll make you follow the link to see why that may pose a problem for not only our biggest conventional bunker buster but even one with a nuclear payload. Possible solution: Deep Digger, a.k.a. the earthquake bomb.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Was chicken wire involved in this experiment? Because if there wasn’t, it isn’t scientifically valid.
ReubenJCogburn on April 13, 2007 at 2:27 PM
So were the Japanese caves on Iwo. Amazing what collapsing 500 feet of entrance tunnel will do.
Limerick on April 13, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Yeah, I read that. But I tend to agree with the Army, there are other ways. There are lots of things to think about besides just how well it shields from a hit directly above. How far out from the bunker to you harden? What about infrastructure? Is it 100% self contained to include water supply? At what point does a bunker become a self-imposed detention facility? If you can disrupt its function, you might not need to compromise its structure.
crosspatch on April 13, 2007 at 2:30 PM
Uh Yeah but, using the nuclear option would leave them in their nuclear wasteland playground…trapped in the foolish bunker, and that would be bad why??
Cavemen building better caves.. interesting..
Viper1 on April 13, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Why have nuclear power plants, built for the sole purpose of providing an alternative energy source to Iran, been constructed of nearly impenetrable high compression strength concrete?
Just sayin.
fogw on April 13, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Yes, every defense has its weakness. And that weakness is the fine line of distinction between a bunker and a tomb.
stonemeister on April 13, 2007 at 2:39 PM
Who cares if Iran has bunkers? Anyone know of an imminent invasion? Why do we always talk about the threat from Iran? Their last war was in the 80’s. If Iran really posed a threat we could clobber them in a matter of hours. Everyone’s so damned worked up over Iran. And for what? We can’t even win in Iraq. And we sit here postulating on the relative strength of Iran’s military defenses. Give me a break! This is why we are losing control of Afghanistan. We got bored with that war, handed control to NATO, then invaded Iraq. Finish what you start. My god!
shackler on April 13, 2007 at 2:39 PM
And yes, I do understand that we are losing in Iraq because of Iranian arms, etc, etc. etc.
shackler on April 13, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Ah, you just need a laser and lots of popcorn. It worked in Real Genius.
You can design a really great bunker, but in the end, it will be built by the lowest bidder.
rw on April 13, 2007 at 2:42 PM
I thought the robot cockroach option was interesting.
And creepy.
see-dubya on April 13, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Concrete “test breaks” utilize constant pressure. Bunker busters are not constant pressure. If the bomb can reach the concrete vessel (bunker), the shock and frequency of the blast would kill most anything inside even if it doesn’t completely penetrate.
Have you ever stuck your head inside a church bell housing and had someone tap the bell?
natesnake on April 13, 2007 at 2:44 PM
RedWinged Blackbird on April 13, 2007 at 2:45 PM
And there is always spall.
crosspatch on April 13, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Shackler–Iran has links to terrorist organizations like Hezbollah–especially Hezbollah- all over the world, including inside the United States. They coordinated the attacks in Buenos Aires in 1994. They’ve also threatened to wipe Israel off the map. They are already dangerous but will be terribly so if they get nuclear weapons, which there’s little serious doubt they’re trying t odo.
see-dubya on April 13, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Before they use one, they are going to have to test one. So they are going to have to build at least two.
crosspatch on April 13, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Also, the more steel fiber they use, the more it is prone to melt. Formed charges will cut thru it like a hot knife thru butter.
natesnake on April 13, 2007 at 2:50 PM
What? These underground Persians don’t breath? Show me a bunker and I’ll show you an air shaft. These deep underground bunkers sound like very expensive tombs to me. The Deep Digger technology (quite impressive BTW) would totally take the fun out of their Dr. Evil style hide-out.
Mojave Mark on April 13, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Oh dear. The Iranians have finally invented completely, utterly, totally impenetrable concrete, just like the fwench did right after WWI which, as we all know, stopped the Panzers dead in their tracks and let the garrison sit out the next 5 years in complete safety from the Nazis.
We’re doomed, I tell you. Might as well just surrender right now and get it over with before they invent un-meltable steel as well.
Misha I on April 13, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Why?
RedWinged Blackbird on April 13, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Ro-Ro sez we’re too late.
Kid from Brooklyn on April 13, 2007 at 2:57 PM
One more thing (not to bore you with details) but concrete inherently has very good compressive strength but marginal tensile strength (imagine the force created in a tightened rope). That’s why when you hit concrete with a hammer it cracks. When you hit steel with a hammer it rings.
I’m too concerned with this development. Show me a 50 foot fence and I’ll show you a 51 foot ladder.
natesnake on April 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Everyone’s so damned worked up over Iran. And for what?
Hello, mushroom clouds? Nuclear weapons in the hands of religious fruitcakes who have sworn to destroy Israel? Any of that ring a bell?
Lehuster on April 13, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Embedded steel fibers in the concrete would be a good thing if they didn’t provide a water proof coating. Nothing like internal rusting to break up your own concrete from the inside out! I’m also quite skeptical of a 50 to 60ksi concrete mix. That’s the yield strength of steel.
Hootie on April 13, 2007 at 3:07 PM
That’s the same damned logic that got us into Iraq. Mushroom clouds. Emotionally impactive. Not all that logical. No one has presented proof that Iran in creating nuclear weapons. So they are enriching uranium. We do that too. Oh wait. We have nukes, don’t we? Hmmm. Tough spot. Damn them. Damn them Iranians. Damn them and their women and their small children! Death to Iran! They are doing something that remotely looks like an attempt to possibly acquire the know how to maybe build a nuclear bomb that they may or may not use on Israel. DEATH TO IRAN!!!
ps-I know. I sound like the guys before WWII that didn’t want to deal with Nazis. I know. You guys are the smart ones. You were right about Iraq’s WMD. Please forgive me.
shackler on April 13, 2007 at 3:08 PM
You know, there are just some kids who really shouldn’t get a chemistry set…
honora on April 13, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Impenetrable bunkers? Hope they’re not made by the same people who sold the Kuwaiti’s the impenetrable hangers at Ali Al Salem Air Base. The hangers didn’t fair very well once the US Air Force dropped some packages on them. But alas if I remember right they were built by a French company
The French built them, the Iraqis occupied them, and the US added air conditioning.
SPIFF1669 on April 13, 2007 at 3:14 PM
If Iran has not tested a weapon successfully then there would be doubt as to A: they have really built one and B: that it even works. So any threat they might attempt to convey using nuclear weapons would be weak at best. The NorKs tried to build one and couldn’t do it. Their test was a fizzle. See where they are now?
crosspatch on April 13, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Might not even need to “penetrate” the bunker. You might be able to push it right out of the ground.
crosspatch on April 13, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Hypothetical Question: If you’re standing on top of one of the world’s largest known oil fields, why would you need nuclear power? tick, tock, tick, tock,…..
You’re right. It’s not fair. Everyone should have a nuclear bomb so no one feels left out.
natesnake on April 13, 2007 at 3:19 PM
LOL.
Regarding the post:
See, if there’s noone left to use the bunker, I don’t have to worry about penetrating it.
amerpundit on April 13, 2007 at 3:19 PM
“You were right about Iraq’s WMD. Please forgive me.
shackler on April 13, 2007 at 3:08 PM”
Sorry, we listened to Clinton on that subject, never again. Remember Operation Destern Fox, I thought not.
Meanwhile back at the ranch Iran is using up money like never before on weapons they dare not use and bunkers that will never be quite strong enough. Soon they will be as bankrupt as the USSR before the fall of communism. Could the reign of the mullah’s end so simply?
Buzzy on April 13, 2007 at 3:23 PM
That’s the same damned logic that got us into Iraq. Mushroom clouds. Emotionally impactive. Not all that logical.
Not all that logical? It is absolutely logical that Iran would seek nuclear weapons.
No one has presented proof that Iran in creating nuclear weapons.
No proof will ever satisfy leftist retards, but whatever. Just stick your head in the sand and ignore the sound of those whirring centrifuges.
Lehuster on April 13, 2007 at 3:27 PM
The trajectory of the bomb could be at an angle so it detonates underneath the bunker verses the top. It’s the difference between setting a firecracker on top of a pop can and underneath one. The latter uses the ground as leverage to propel the can vertically.
natesnake on April 13, 2007 at 3:28 PM
Sunshine on my shoulders makes me happy!
Nonfactor on April 13, 2007 at 3:29 PM
To quote our newest lefty convert….
‘Deserving has nothin’ to do with it.’
Let the IAD figure it out later.
Limerick on April 13, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Whoa.
You guys played with firecrackers and gunpowder a lot as kids, didn’t you? :-)
Slublog on April 13, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Oh come on, Nate! Everyone knows the Iranians are genuinely concerned about the burning of fossil fuels and are simply looking for greener energy alternatives in order to help save the planet.
Shame on us for threatening to put the brakes on their totally peaceful use of nuclear power.
CliffHanger on April 13, 2007 at 3:38 PM
I never grew up. Much like Jell-O, there’s always room for fireworks and porn.
natesnake on April 13, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Oh… and Death to America!
CliffHanger on April 13, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Hmmm. I dunno. Maybe because their President has said he’s going to acquire nuclear weapons, that he can’t be stopped, that there are no inspectors in the country, that he’s got the centrifuges, and he’s repeatedly and publicly promised to annihilate Israel – our ally – a country that could frankly be wiped off the map with a handful of nukes?
Out of curiousity, if I come to your house, tell you I have a gun and I’m going to shoot you … will you assume I’m kidding and do nothing about it? Or might you, I dunno, ask a couple questions?
Jesus wept. THIS kind of guy is the reason we’re in trouble.
And the great irony: if we do nothing, and the worst happen …. who many seconds do you think it will take Einstein here to blame George Bush?
Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. It never ends. If we had actually invaded Afghanistan in early 2001 and stopped 9/11 …. these same liberal idiots would STILL be marching in the streets about it.
There is absolute nothing we can do, because of people like this. All we can do is wait for the attack to come. The attack that history shows ALWAYS comes. And that idiots like this ALWAYS assume won’t happen.
Dear Lord. The stupidity. Screw work, I’m going to get a beer.
Professor Blather on April 13, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Every barrel of oil Iran must use domestically takes away from their potential income. To develop domestic nuclear power would allow more of their oil production to be exported and make them less dependent on imported refined products.
I don’t think anyone is against Iran having nuclear energy. We would probably be willing to build and operate all the plants they want. They can have nuclear electricity coming out their ears, we don’t care.
What we care about is being able to monitor that energy sector to make sure that weapons aren’t developed. That’s all. Nobody is denying Iran’s “right” to nuclear energy. But Iran is denying the rest of the world their right to security.
crosspatch on April 13, 2007 at 3:57 PM
I’m underwhelmed by the high compressive strength concrete. A bomb blast will induce bending stress (which is tensile on the underside of the roof structure. It’s tensile strength and fracture toughness that’ll carry the day against bunker busters. Unfortunately, concrete has neither of these. This concrete’ll need to be reinforced with steel just like any other. As others have pointed out, I doubt they could mass-produce this stuff anyway.
jdpaz on April 13, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Sounds like it’ll make a most excellent Tomb….
CrazyFool on April 13, 2007 at 4:00 PM
No, you know what, you’re right. I mean all we have is Russia’s lead nuclear scientist saying he believes they are trying to make them, the IAEA saying it can’t confirm its peaceful, Iran’s President’s desire to wipe Israel off the map, unanimous resolutions being placed against Iran by the Security Council, and a majority of the European Union helping us build a weapon shield to stop nuclear weapons from Iran. Other then that, we’re alone in our thinking, here.
amerpundit on April 13, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Just one simple question. Are you prepared to support Iran in its efforts to accomplish – whatever – is in their plans?
A yes or no answer will suffice.
News2Use on April 13, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Oh, and did I mention polls showing 53% of the EU says that we must stop Iran at all costs, including military action? Or, how about the fact that Iran removed the Security cameras from its nuclear facility that is apparently most productive?
amerpundit on April 13, 2007 at 4:04 PM
**cue image of shackler with eyes closed, fingers in ears, saying, “la la la la la I can’t hear you la la la la la I can’t hear you……**
natesnake on April 13, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Oh, and here are some quotes from Democrats about the WMDs Iraq didn’t have.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Source.
amerpundit on April 13, 2007 at 4:07 PM
I’m with thw previous commenters (there were several) that pointed out that bunkers need both entrances and air supplies that go all the way to the surface. As long as those shafts/tunnels can be identified and targeted with weapons already in our stockpiles (or perhaps more accurately, in Israel’s), then hitting the core bunkers directly seems less important.
Certainly, you can argue that the equipment would be undamaged, but if a thermobaric bomb snuffs out all the oxygen within before the tunnel and shaft entrances are collapsed, Iran would lose the brainpower needed to make their systems work, and I’m not led to believe they have a lot of nuclear scientists and technicians laying around as spares.
Bob Owens on April 13, 2007 at 4:11 PM
These bunkers are nothing that a good 25 nuclear ICBMs with a ground detonation can’t handle….
Tim Burton on April 13, 2007 at 4:20 PM
I think we should sneak in the invisible crew that wired up the World Trade Center for controlled demolition without anybody noticing. They’ll never know what hit ‘em!
see-dubya on April 13, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Source.
amerpundit on April 13, 2007 at 4:07 PM
I had no idea you were such a fan of Ted and Nancy and Bill and John K. Go figure.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 4:31 PM
I’d imagine the shock from multiple bunker-busters would do the trick. But I do like the whole, “F IT, let’s just bury the whole damn installation using bombs.”
I wonder if we can fly a UCAV with a really big explosive into the complex. All those vids of Smart-Weapons going through windows now makes a whole lotta sense to me. (Give Capt Apollo an unguarded access shaft and he’ll make it happen)
Besides, assuming we have Air Superiority, we can pound on that thing all day long. I’m sure we’ve got plenty of inventory of the bigger 1,000lbs+ bombs sitting around.
Kai on April 13, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Hey honora, slide the goalposts a little more this way.
Kai on April 13, 2007 at 4:43 PM
I hate to see a good insult or smarty pants remark go to waste, so I am sad to tell you, I don’t know what this means. Sports analogies are not my thing, sorry.
honora on April 13, 2007 at 5:05 PM
I only have a minute, so I can only hit a few points.
News2use: Yes. Why not? I don’t fear Iran.
Buzzy: Ummmm…when conservatives have no argument they go back to Clinton. He hasn’t been prez for six years. Ummmm…last I checked, the intel wasn’t good enough for him to invade. He bombed saddam a few times for firing missiles in the no-fly zone and for booting inspectors out. Never invaded though. Wasn’t really a threat to us.
Amerpundit: The dems were dumbasses too on this Iraq thing. They gave the conservatives power to invade. Then the conservatives invaded (like morons) and bungled the whole damned thing.
Amerpundit: (I get to answer two of yours). Still no proof. The EU says a lot of things. Like Saddam having an active WMD program. Remember that one? The Russians? Come on! You believe the KGB? The IAEA can’t confirm that it’s for peaceful purposes. Conservative speak: “GUILTY!!!” Wow. Can’t prove what the program for? Convincing. And UN resolutions? That proves guilt.
mmmm…kool-aid… mmmmm…
shackler on April 13, 2007 at 5:09 PM
My analogy was a little off anyway.
I was trying to think of a clever way of saying “You completely missed the Point”
*shrug*
Kai on April 13, 2007 at 5:13 PM
I think we can put this in the same category as their cure for AIDS.
Ain’t no way in the hot place they made 60 ksi concrete. The quoted individual thinks the aggregate was quartz–whooopeee. The sidewalk outside your house probably has some quartz in it as well. It’s not an unusual mineral to find in aggregate. Maybe if the entire mix design was steel fibers they might get really high strengths, but not 60 ksi.
Under dynamic loading, the physical properties of concrete are actually higher than when tested at a steady but slow rate, so the real “strength” under impact would be greater. But the challenges of high strength concrete are many, including getting the concrete to not self destruct under the heat of hydration as it sets. I’ve not used anything over 6000 psi, but there have been projects in the US that have used up to 20,000 if I’m not mistaken.
Oh, and also also, concrete does not increase in strength by orders of magnitude over time. Yes it gets stronger, but not 10 or 100 times stronger. The guy sounds like a sophomore engineering student who had a concrete materials lab and got all excited.
TexasDan on April 13, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Nothing is inpenatrable. Any armor can be defeated. It’s all in the approach. A Plasma Thermic tipped pentrator weapon can eat straight through any material in seconds. Concrete and steel won’t pose much of a challenge for such a weapon. Inertia, Temperature, and Mass are all key ingredients. If a nuke is being considered to pentrate the shelters then a core can be designed to not yeild but triggered into a recation to create a molten mass that burn through any material. An object heated to over 5000 degrees F and going 3 times the speed of sound should do the trick.
Egfrow on April 13, 2007 at 5:39 PM
The way I would approach a bunker is first to decide what the purpose of it was. If it is performing some function such as command and control or some manufacturing process, I would look to see if there are any ways I could disrupt the function if I couldn’t take out the bunker itself. In other words, yes, it is obvious that the bunker is a shelter but it is a shelter for something. If you can keep that something from doing what it is supposed to do, you have mitigated the need for the shelter because at that point, it is sheltering something that is useless. So if you can render the function useless without penetrating the shelter itself, you are ahead of the game.
Now if the sole purpose of the bunker is shelter … to keep certain high priority people alive so they can perform some vital function, you can mitigate that as well. If they can not communicate with the world outside the shelter, then they are in effect in a cell. If you can prevent them from exiting the shelter, you have imprisoned them in their own bastion.
So there are several ways to get around it. You can attack it from directions and in ways it was not designed for, you can isolate it, and you can make the area outside of the bunker so unsafe that the occupants can’t venture out. So you have effectively neutralized the bunker without a direct penetration of it. In fact, you could force an enemy to expend valuable resources in defending a useless bunker for quite a long time.
crosspatch on April 13, 2007 at 5:45 PM
That’s what I was thinking. Plus, it will need outside resources to remain running. It doesn’t matter if you can’t destroy the facility if nobody can use it.
And as others pointed out, concrete is very strong vs. compressive force, but fairly weak vs. tensile force (that’s why reinforcing rods are used). Concussions from a bomb would present both forms of stress which could weaken or crumble the structure. Just peel off a few inches at a time…
taznar on April 13, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Thousands of Pitbulls in little parachutes all trained to enjoy the taste of Iranian flesh.
It could happen.
Hening on April 13, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Yeah, that’s how the 2nd Zombie War started. Won’t we ever learn from our mistakes.
Kai on April 13, 2007 at 6:02 PM
“Thousands of Pitbulls”
I like the image of wild boar better. First you send a hundred C-130’s over spraying a fine mist of bacon grease and then airdrop a few thousand wild pigs on them. And maybe a few pitbulls too, just to keep it interesting.
crosspatch on April 13, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Unleash the 50′ MJ robot on them and watch them squirm. Shock and awe!
shaken on April 13, 2007 at 7:32 PM
The USAF has been “expediting” the development of MOP, especially sizing it to fit on something fast and stealthy.
I believe the bomb will be ready by mid-spring. Live testing will at the new “proving grounds” in central Iran (I hope).
Zorro on April 13, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Now if we could just get the liberals to put the same amount of effort into fighting terrorists as they put in to trying to take Rove down, we’d be out of Iraq in no time. Just sayin’…
Connie on April 14, 2007 at 11:07 AM
[Hootie on April 13, 2007 at 3:07 PM]
Including steel fibers is partly the reason it approaches the strength of steel and the test becomes more of a tensile strength test not compressive strength test. Playing word games — including steel fibers in the mix and calling the concrete nonreinforced — does not impress me. The purpose of the research and the tests to advance the science of cement and aggregate mixtures, not steel reinforcement of concrete, and if that threshold is violated, 50k or 60k “concrete” is a no-brainer. But tech for 15k or 20k concrete is there when needed for construction.
And that’s the key word in all of this — construction. It’s one thing to make a 2′x 2′ block of concrete with that strength for a laboratory competition and another to build something out of it. I won’t disparage anyone’s construction industry, as a quick perusal of our own, which I have great respect for, gives me justification for not being at all worried about Iran’s (or, for that matter Russia’s when they’re building something for Iran).
Dusty on April 14, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Comment pages: