Notices
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Iran nuclear objects could be destroyed with bombs?

  1. #1 Iran nuclear objects could be destroyed with bombs? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    I do not see what whould prevent Iran to build its nuclear objects deeply under
    some mountain ridge.Is there some bombs (including nuclear) which are able to
    bring down a mountain ridge?!


    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The short answer is no, but the US money grubbing military-industrial is right now selling a lot of snake oil trying to convince politians otherwise. Even the best theoretical bunker buster wouldn't get as deep as horizontals mining operations from a hundred years ago.


    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Do they have some weapon which is able to cause earthquakes or create very powerfull accoustic shock waves deep underground?

    Could they use some drilling robots with nuclear engines to get deep there?
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Could they use some drilling robots with nuclear engines to get deep there?
    Isn't there some B movie from the 50s about an invasion by drilling through the center of the earth from China to the US?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I wonder what would happen if they started an ordinary slow nuclear reaction via a reactor and allowed it to overheat? Would it burn its way down? ....... I'm thinking probably not. Probably it would just reduce the surrounding rock into slag and then stay put in the pool it created. Only way for it to keep burning downward is if it has a greater density than the surrounding rock (so it sinks in the magma).

    Just do like Chernobyl. Use graphite as the moderator (because of the super high melting point of graphite) and let it go wild. But I'm totally speculating, like crazy talk speculating.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    20
    hi peeps

    leave iran nuclear bomb there are many atomic bombs all around the world of individual people also what we care about irans one
    here is some example look here people


    How to Build an H-Bomb

    another fella from the us who build atomic bomb and he share the stuff with us
    anyway the problem is that we can be in jail for all of our life in this world and here is some good advice from me
    actually who have an atom bomb and he push the button we all die
    so what does it matter who push the button actually its can be every -everyone can activate an atom bomb from far away or to build one and activate it from farwway because what does it matters if i activate mine or someone else activate his and we all need to die peeps
    so i have a new idea instead of atom bomb that what does it matters who actvate it because its exist here and every one can activate it
    we can creat using nanotechnology a new lighter chain reaction with no detonation just lighter chain reaction and use who will need it will use it by converting as much matter as possible thats it simple and easy

    btw spread this message as much as u can if u find someone who deal with spreading messages all around the world thats could be good thing also lighter atomic bomb and also like now while we have atomic bombs in many people's hands so what does it matters who will activate it

    have a nice day and good luck
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    I wonder what would happen if they started an ordinary slow nuclear reaction via a reactor and allowed it to overheat? Would it burn its way down? ....... I'm thinking probably not. Probably it would just reduce the surrounding rock into slag and then stay put in the pool it created.
    If this is regarding my assumption about driling machines with nuclear engines,then of cource I didn`t mean that they suppose to burn
    it way down.I meant they suppose to have usual mechanical drilling devices.Diamond drills.And nuclear engines just used to create mechanical force for those drills.Obvously you need to have nuclear engines because to drill holes with few hundreds meters or few miles deapth will require lot of energy.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I don't think you can make a nuclear powered mechanical drill unless it has access to a lot of water. A nuclear reaction is basically just a very very strong heat source. Without a steam engine or something to harness all that heat, no useful mechanical energy is going to be available. That's one reason why nuclear boats are so practical, plenty of water all around. Nuclear airplanes have been designed too, using convection of the air to create thrust. But if you're drilling underground you wouldn't likely have access to a sufficient airflow either.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    I don't think you can make a nuclear powered mechanical drill unless it has access to a lot of water.
    What do you think about use of some short living isotopes as an energy source?
    I suggest that we need external cooling only in case if temperature of hot sink is higher than melting point of materials.
    Such as combustion engine.If we use,say,isotopes then we could regulate initial temperature that it would never go
    beyond melting point.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    instead of some complicated process of destroying something buried under a mountain, would it not be better to just repeatedly target the entrance(s) to the facility? Deny them its use.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    instead of some complicated process of destroying something buried under a mountain, would it not be better to just repeatedly target the entrance(s) to the facility? Deny them its use.
    Entrance been narrow and predictable place is much easier to protect with help of an active anti-misile shield.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    instead of some complicated process of destroying something buried under a mountain, would it not be better to just repeatedly target the entrance(s) to the facility? Deny them its use.
    Entrance been narrow and predictable place is much easier to protect with help of an active anti-misile shield.
    Anti-missile shields of any sort are decades more advanced than producing a nuke. Bunker busters, if that's what we try to use, aren't really missiles anyhow--their more like bombs or for fun a lot like enormous lawn darts (tipped with explosives) dropped from high orbit. Their penetration relies on kinetic energy and I doubt anyone has the tech to stop it.

    I think Wallaby is right. Put men on the ground to find the entrance and exit points and than later sealing those openings from by an air-strike is much more simple than trying to actually destroy the heart of a well-buried facility.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    I think Wallaby is right. Put men on the ground to find the entrance and exit points and than later sealing those openings from by an air-strike is much more simple than trying to actually destroy the heart of a well-buried facility.
    How bombs could destroy heart of well buried facility?All they could do is to explode near entrance.To get deeper you will need some kind of slow moving and precision guided misile.Which would be good target for anti-missile shield.

    What do you mean by sealing of openings?If you are going to bury people alive inside of facility it will look too unhuman in eyes of world comunity.Or if people inside will have enough supplies they may survive and be saved by resque teems.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Dude, If we make the decision to bomb a target, than killing people who are actually working on the target is both moral, legal, and the last of our concerns.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Still I do not think that sealing of entrances with bombs will work very well.
    During construction of facility they could make at least two different passages:
    one larger for materials and parts delivery and another one for people only.
    The last one could be very narrow and very well protected and embedded in
    a steel pipe of few meters thick.If bombers would target a larger entrance for
    mechanical parts after facility will be already built it may not be very great
    problem since it`s already functioning and need no more parts.
    Even if they would seal all the passages a humans inside may have enough
    supplies such as oxygen and food.I don`t think that digging a new tunnel will
    take more than a few weeks.If a tunnel is digged inside of mountain than you
    will need to bring down part of mountain to seal it.Not an easy task.And low
    probability of complete and perfect seal.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I mostly agree with you. It is however probably the only way to hit a well buried target from afar. We really don't have many options and even America can't change the laws of physics regardless of what the hawks in the DC beltway might think or money hungry snake oil salesmen dressed up as military contractors might be telling politicians and media.

    If we wanted to be sure we'd spend another $trillion, a few thousand American lives, and a hundred thousand crippled young people to replace the Iranian government-which I don't think is worth it by a long shot.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; February 11th, 2012 at 11:57 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Doesn't have to be a perfect seal and it doesn't have to take the plant out of commission permanently. Consider the case of a uranium enrichment facility, you can bet that there are probably trucks bringing uranium ore into the mountain and taking the enriched uranium out of the facility. Bombing the access road(s) and points for these trucks doesn't take the facility out of commission, but it would interrupt the supply of enriched uranium, result in the extra expense of re-opening the facility and it would just be plain annoying. I'd say that justifies the expense of the bombs and the planes.

    Although another point to make is that apparently Iran is not exactly primitive when it comes to anti-air defence, according to a time magazine article assessing the plausibility/ effectiveness of an Israeli air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. (don't know exactly how credible the article was since it's time magazine)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    All the above gave me a rib-ache from laughing!
    Ouch!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Well you're easy to please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Refining Uranium is a high energy process, so if we want to shut the plant down, an option would be to just bomb every power plant within reach of the area, and keep bombing them if they build more. It's cruel to the local population who have to live without electricity, but they'll live.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    If we're entertaining WMD options, then another possibility would be to resort to biological weapons. Introduce the right toxin or disease into the underground base and it will surely be out of commission for a while.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Didn't we take out the leader of a neigboring country for doing just that???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Hmmm, well we could try employing our greatest weapon: hypocrisy.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Ohhh Noes!!!! Not that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    Iran had made success.There complition of atomic energy is almost done.I dont see the holy land will be around for much longer.The Americans will need to gear up once again for this one ;{
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    It's not all bad, get to watch the invasion of another country on tv again...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    One thing I don't get. Jerusalem is a holy city to Muslims as well, so how would they bring themselves to nuke it? I guess they could nuke other areas of Israel, so long as they were confident the fallout wasn't going to reach the Dome of the Rock and contaminate it. Or.... what am I missing here?

    If Iran nukes the USA well..... that'll be the last thing they ever do.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    Can we make underground drones?
    to scout and monitor stuff
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    127
    Iran is the least of our worries if Mic Romney get president of the U.S ..lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Smallpox- should it be kept or 'destroyed'?
    By x(x-y) in forum Biology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 24th, 2011, 10:19 AM
  2. what the heck energy destroyed¡¡¡¡?
    By luxtpm in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2010, 12:57 PM
  3. Energy is never destroyed
    By robizeratul in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 17th, 2010, 11:56 AM
  4. If Nuclear bombs rain down?
    By rjc79 in forum Physics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: November 28th, 2008, 12:21 PM
  5. If Nuclear bombs rain down?(pseudo)
    By William McCormick in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2008, 04:58 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •