What they're saying is that even the most fortified / deepest bunkers are not safe from modern day nuclear penetrators.

I think it's true given the shockwave and heat produced when a nuke is detonated underground. That heat cannot escape and cook everything in a certain radius.

I think I got it. Heat isn't the thing. Underground tests haven't led to any result that leads to a detonation meaning something 1000 feet below is burned or destroyed by the concussive blast. There's too much stone, metal, and dirt to soak up all the heat and force.

No, the "not safe" comes from the earthquake complication. The same thing we saw when the... Uh... Test...? Went wrong in NK, and their nuclear weapons program virtually shut down overnight.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 18 2025 04:39am

Also consider that pin point accuracy means that you can drop a second in the hole left by the first one. Assuming that you have plenty nukes to burn and a priority target like a bunch of highest level government officials hiding in an underground bunker.

This post was edited by Djunior on Feb 18 2025 05:02am

I've seen the theory of pinpoint nukes lining up to bust open the deepest bunkers. Point blank, if you can hit a target with that many nukes, you basically already control that target. if you control that target, digging out the bunker is easy enough to do instead, and you can retain all of the intelligence that target inevitably contains.

I've never seen any news, intelligence, or even heard rumors from military friends or family, who include more than a few nuclear engineers and physicists that our government level bunkers are at any real risk, nor Russia's, for that matter.

The earthquake risk is real, but it's not controllable. Too much relies on large pockets of methane (natural gas) being present, and the detonation bringing in enough air to allow the spark to set up a chain reaction. It's not a predictable thing.

That means that there is a risk, of that you're correct, for even the deepest, most hardened bunkers. But it's not a high risk.

Arms race.

Your enemy will try to obtain weapons capable of busting your bunkers.

When bunker busters become increasingly more powerful you need to build stronger / deeper bunkers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster

Germany is officially cooked..

Now I understand why Germans doesn't have a sense of humor. All the funny Germans are in prison.



"You are hiding some shitposters under the floorboards , are you not ?"

- Some German dude.

This post was edited by Hamsterbaby on Feb 18 2025 08:26am

The gestapo is back.

will be happy

Stasi - Wikipedia
The Ministry for State Security , commonly known as the Stasi (pronounced [ˈʃtaːziː] , an abbreviation of Staatssicherheit), was the state security service and secret police of East Germany from 1950 to 1990. It was one of the most repressive police organisations in the world, infiltrating almost every aspect of life

The largest problem with the article you linked to is the kind of bunker busters it refers to are pretty standard. It's a bomb that hits the surface and explodes. My assumption was you were talking about something a bit more complex that propels the nuke down into the stone THEN detonates. But it also outlines that they were created to penetrate purely concrete facilities. Not penetrate a mountain of stone. And elevator shafts are protected by millions of tons of stone overhead. Like, nothing from that article is going to impact government/military brass level bunkers. Not without an earthquake. Though it may collapse it, if they're lucky, so they can't get out. That's it.

I understand what you're saying. Pearl Harbor was a hell of a lesson not to be too confident in your safety measures, but honestly, too many government systems have been hacked at this point for me to believe that opposition efforts are designed to hit bunkers that aren't particularly relevant in the first place.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 18 2025 08:49am