More warporn: New bunker buster carries extra nuance for Iran
posted at 2:25 pm on March 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
There are three ways to deal with Iranian nukes: (1) new rounds of pointless UN sanctions like the one we got today; (2) a sturdy wallop of Hope and Change, to inspire them into submission; or (3) the last resort. Further to the third, enjoy Danger Room’s update to this item from last April about Tehran manufacturing concrete so super-reinforced that bunkers built with it might be impenetrable to all conventional ordnance, and maybe some not so conventional too. The more immovable the object is, the more irresistible the force must be. Enter the BROACH.
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:
Now THAT was pretty impressive!
upinak on March 3, 2008 at 2:29 PM
You don’t really want to know what a Candygram is in military jargon.
It is a “gift” purchased for departing personel.
Rode Werk on March 3, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Hubba Hubba! I haven’t seen that much dirt moved since the Clintons left Arkansas.
JohnTant on March 3, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Mongo like candy!!
CaptainObvious on March 3, 2008 at 2:31 PM
There’s just somethin’ about twisted wreckage that makes me smile!
dmann on March 3, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Why go to all that trouble and expense when we can just get some Navy Seals to capture Ahmadinejad while he’s engaged in his favorite past time (goat violating), shove an M-80 up his rectum and light it?
Assassination would make him a martyr, but a lifetime of incontinence?
The Mullahs will be offering to mow our lawns. Let’s work smarter.
NoDonkey on March 3, 2008 at 2:31 PM
“Sheriff Bart only one ever beat Mongo. Mongo impressed!”
mojo on March 3, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Awesome! I think we should put out the word to all of those radical muslim extreamists, that we rub hog sh%t on the tips of every bullet, bomb, ect. in our arsenal!
kcd on March 3, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Heh.
Sounder on March 3, 2008 at 2:36 PM
All I can think about is the poor engineers who worked so hard to make a super duper double reinforced concrete shack, only to have all their hard work blown to smithereens.
“General.. the super duper double reinforced concrete shack is ready for inspection!”
“OK men, ready the missle!”
“Oh hell, you’re going to blow this one up too?”
tlynch001 on March 3, 2008 at 2:39 PM
CANDYGRAM FOR MONGO!
ThePrez on March 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM
“Mongo like candy!” :)
ThePrez on March 3, 2008 at 2:41 PM
BOOM!
ThePrez on March 3, 2008 at 2:42 PM
I don’t get it. These are like 7 ft of concrete, today’s standard BB’s can go through 10 ft already.
Hizballah has built 100+ ft deep bunkers in Lebanon – Iran may have 200ft bunkers which are impenetrable. This is why ground forces are a must in any kind of operation.
Aristotle on March 3, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Nice tool. Worth every penny and then some. Still say you don’t have to kill the bunkers, you just have to seal them.
Collapse the access tunnels and the bunker is useless. Of course squishing the bunker like a bug is a nice side benefit.
Limerick on March 3, 2008 at 2:43 PM
When can we test it on the real thing?
Kini on March 3, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Question: ALL bunkers, no matter how deep, have to have an air supply, right? Why waste a bomb? Find the air supply, fill it with serin gas, The End. I have to admit though, I’m sure this would be much more fun!
kcd on March 3, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Where are these babies?
DMeNTe on March 3, 2008 at 2:56 PM
“Mongo just pawn in game of life.”
Whoah, I just blanked out. What did I just say?
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 3, 2008 at 2:58 PM
AP, regarding the three options you list, as you know, only one is realistic–preemptive strike. But there is one other option: threaten to wipe Mecca’s idols–sorry, shrines–off the map if they harm us.
jgapinoy on March 3, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Aristotle:
Search for “Sedan Crater” on Google Earth.
Section of Battleship barrel + fins + tac nuke = collapsed bunker.
Kristopher on March 3, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Yeah, here’s where the Iranians hit the BS meter.
For full disclosure/absolute moral authority points, I’m a structural engineer, PE, and got my masters at UT Austin (who the hell is UT Arlington?) The scare quote from Danger Room quotes a student who participated in a competition based on 2×2 test cubes.
Steel fibers in the mix=steel reinforcement. So the Iranians made a steel reinforced concrete cube, which ought to have been against the rules of whatever the competition was. Regardless, you cannot derive a concrete strength (the strength of the concrete alone) based on a test of a reinforced specimen (concrete plus steel.) The UTA student would have been pleasantly surprised to see his test results soar too if he’d doped his specimen with steel fibers.
This is not to say the Iranians aren’t working on high strength concrete, or that it’s not an issue for bunker busting. The dynamic properties of concrete are different (and much higher) than what you would get out of the standard labratory compression test, but I assume they corrolate well.
In practical terms in the US, high strength concrete is anything over 8000 psi. IIRC, the northwest uses quite a bit, and I believe they have built structures using 20,000 psi concrete. If they had a 20- or 30- psi mix and used even a relatively small percentage of steel fibers, 50,000 pounds doesn’t surprise me at all.
TexasDan on March 3, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Cool. As a practical matter– reinforced concrete or not– I find it rather difficult to imagine that Iran could build anything, anywhere that we couldn’t explode, if we really wanted to.
morganfrost on March 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Very nice. I’m not sure but it looks like the JSOW, Navy version.
Zorro on March 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Aren’t some of them opposed to the Mecca shrines? So threatening to blow them up is of limited utility. I think I read that some of the more fundamentalist Muslims abhor the idolotry implicit in having shrines. Anybody here know if that’s right?
Bad Penny on March 3, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Nice.
WayWard Fundamentalist Christian on March 3, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Perhaps we will lob more than one into the bunkers? I seem to recall back in Gulf War, part I, a movie was made where one cruise missile blew a hole into a bunker, and it was quickly followed by another one that went into the hole the first made. That has to hurt.
Texas Nick 77 on March 3, 2008 at 3:52 PM
As Kris just eluded to, there is NO BUNKER ON EARTH that can’t be penetrated by someone with the resolve to penetrate.
jimbo2008 on March 3, 2008 at 3:53 PM
This page has a few photographs of the AGM-154
Zorro on March 3, 2008 at 3:54 PM
I’d be nice to have Robert Spencer weigh in on this, but here’s my 2 bits: you’re talking about the difference between “high” Islam and “folk” Islam. High, or more theologically orthodox, Islam would speak against the veneration of Islamic saints and the magical powers associated with their shrines. Folk Islam is a term broadly describing the practice of Islam mixed with “folk” or more animistic practices. Dervishism in Turkey is probably the best know example.
As far as adherence goes, “folk” Islam predominates. That is, most Muslims include in their worldview practices which are not taught by the Koran, and some which would arguably be forbidden. In many areas, the local Imam is more like a shaman.
I’m not going to comment on whether they’re high value targets, but I don’t think the Islamic world would say “ehhh, whatever” to attacks on them.
TexasDan on March 3, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Mongo know it has notin to do wit choo-choo but me think it has somtin to do wit big bomb…
Liberty or Death on March 3, 2008 at 4:14 PM
We were not able to penetrate some of Saddam’s bunkers, even with multiple shots digging their way down. Fortunately, Air Force engineers had plenty of time to study the bomb effects on the actual structures and improve the bombs. This video is probably the result of that improvement program.
The other point is economical. Iran is an economic basket case. Hardened shelters may cost a hundred million bucks a pop and they don’t hold all that much. That means that Iran can not afford to shelter all its atom bomb program in super-hardened shelters. So the next best thing is disperse the program and hide it.
And how about dialing back the expectations of finding a Dr. Evil super-lair full of Iranian nukes? Does anyone remember all those diagrams in glossy newsmagazines of Osama Bin Laden’s superfortress in Tora Bora, complete with hyrdoelectric power and generators and dormitories and hospital suites? Then Tora Bora turned out to be just a hill with some holes dug in it and we never saw those elaborate illustrations of Osama’s underground city again.
I suspect that Iran is opting to hide its nuclear goodies rather than bunker them up.
Tantor on March 3, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Score!
Richard Romano on March 3, 2008 at 4:26 PM
Where can I get one?
davidk on March 3, 2008 at 4:31 PM
It’s even more impressive when you consider that we have the ability to send more of them down the same hole that the first one made.
JC in CA on March 3, 2008 at 4:34 PM
So, uhhhh, were these super freaky deaky bunkers built to protect the nuclear weapons they aren’t manufacturing?
Seems like they’re going to a lot trouble to protect nuclear facilities that are only built to produce electricity, don’t ya think?
fogw on March 3, 2008 at 4:34 PM
That should cure the gopher problem!
Afterimage on March 3, 2008 at 5:10 PM
Just had a wargasm
Immolate on March 3, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Even if they don’t blow the whole bunker up, after sending one bunker-buster after another one, that would have to take a toll on whoever/whatever is in one. I imagine it would be like being stuck in a building during a massive earthquake, but this would go on much longer.
cjs1943 on March 3, 2008 at 6:20 PM
I like candygrams of this nature. They tend to be more meaningful to the recipient.
knob on March 3, 2008 at 6:34 PM
“I imagine it would be like being stuck in a building during a massive earthquake, but this would go on much longer.”
Yeah, probably the rest of your life…
drunyan8315 on March 3, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Iran is building hardened bunkers,I assume its to protect
really expense wine,imported from Russia,or France!
This new weapon,Broach is gonna make one helluva kick-ass
wine opener!Haha
canopfor on March 3, 2008 at 10:00 PM
I….LIKE it!
Cicero43 on March 3, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Playing pretend is cute and all, but let’s get it done already. Or should I just be patient and hope for the Iranians to have a change of heart.. hmm didn’t think so.
whiskeytango on March 3, 2008 at 11:22 PM
I.Y.A.A.Y.A.S. !!!
If you’re not Ammo, you’re waiting on them.
BDU-33 on March 4, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Comment pages: