Article

2007-01-21 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2007-01-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 A strike against, deeply dug in and protected, nuclear installations would be rank stupidity. A strike against infrastructure, though totally un PC, is another business entirely.

Posted by gromgoru 2007-01-21 04:47|| 2007-01-21 04:47|| Front Page Top

#2 can't spin the centrifuges with hamsters. Knock out the power and all work stops

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-01-21 09:42|| 2007-01-21 09:42|| Front Page Top

#3 Everything is technique. How long would the Iranians hold out if their most heavily defended installation, buried deeply underground under a huge amount of reinforced concrete, was suddenly and dramatically annihilated?

Our space shuttle could deploy a guided, rocket-assisted, satellite-sized meteor. With a low earth orbit payload of over 26 tons, made from advanced materials, it would leave nothing but a crater.

We wouldn't have to say anything, and our space shuttle could have landed days before the projectile went on its final descent. To make things even more enigmatic, we could cover it in a radar dispersing material, so that neither Russia nor China would even see it.

It would be a "God Strike". It would end any resistance on their part as much as did the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but at a fraction of the cost in both money and lives.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-01-21 09:43|| 2007-01-21 09:43|| Front Page Top

#4 I like your style, Anonymoose. Let gravity be our guide.

Posted by Excalibur 2007-01-21 12:09|| 2007-01-21 12:09|| Front Page Top

#5 Our space shuttle could deploy a guided, rocket-assisted, satellite-sized meteor. With a low earth orbit payload of over 26 tons, made from advanced materials, it would leave nothing but a crater.

LOL! Sure, why not. It should also have terminal homing capability and be able to broadcast "Ina Gotta Vita" in 9 languages.

Or we could nuke 'em.

Posted by Shipman 2007-01-21 12:26|| 2007-01-21 12:26|| Front Page Top

#6 I was thinking more like Ozzy Osborne's "Mama, I'm coming home"

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-01-21 12:59|| 2007-01-21 12:59|| Front Page Top

#7 Shipman: Here is a good FAS article that goes into detail about the drawbacks of bunker buster nukes:

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

What I propose burrows far deeper and creates no fallout. It could be slapped together easily with fairly off-the-shelf JDAM-like guidance attached to what amounts to a big hunk of advanced ceramic, which you use so that it doesn't burn up as much before impact. I'd throw on an engine to give it even more speed.

So, it works better than a nuke, and if we have a space shuttle ready for a routine mission, we could ship one up in a few weeks. With a thin anti-radar tent or coating around it, it would stay invisible until used.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-01-21 15:38|| 2007-01-21 15:38|| Front Page Top

#8 Anonymous, I agree totally with your suggestion, but I think you dropped a couple of zeroes - that should 2600 tons. That much tonnage, if sent on a looping (slingshot) orbit around the moon, would trigger every fault within 500 miles, and Iran would be too busy just trying to survive to even complain.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-01-21 17:59|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-01-21 17:59|| Front Page Top

#9 Hell why not, I think the idea of throwing an engine on it is a good idea. It should be a light-weight Ion-Fusion Job able to to propell this at about 98,000 MPH which will give it an EarthSide energy-field of about 10^5 boom.

Posted by Shipman 2007-01-21 18:16|| 2007-01-21 18:16|| Front Page Top

#10 Old Patriot: According to the Space Shuttle Wiki, the LEO payload max is 53,700 lb, which is .85 ton greater than 26 tons. So you figure with a 1 ton engine, and another ton of fuel, along with other stuff you might be talking about a 23 or 24 ton projectile.

It uses thrusters for several orbits to stabilize it in a stable orbit, leaving you periodic windows in which you can activate its main engine to guide it on down at a tremendous speed.

Unlike a meteor of this size that would probably fragment in the atmosphere, this would make it to the surface.

Max dimensions of the projectile with fuel tank and engine that would fit in their cargo bay would be about a 4m diameter and a length of as much as 15m. Bay dimensions are 4.6m x 18.3m.

Granted a rail gun firing a "rod from god" would work much better, entering the atmosphere at a much higher rate of speed and having a steeper angle of descent, but I think this man-made meteor might do the trick.

Posted by Anonymoose 2007-01-21 19:20|| 2007-01-21 19:20|| Front Page Top

#11 Great idea 'moose. Too bad our politicians regard war as a public relations exercise, or it would actually have a chance of being used. Assuming it could pass muster in Congress. And in the UNSC. And the administration could withstand the pressure from the "no-artificial-meteors-for-oil" crowd.

Posted by Kirk 2007-01-21 19:38|| 2007-01-21 19:38|| Front Page Top

#12 How's about Orion?. This is the big Atomic powered ship, not the new wimpy NASA one.

Cruising speed up to 8-10% the speed of light and mass of up to 8,000,000 tons (yes, 8 million tons).

That'd make a dent, doncha think?
Let's see (courtesy Wikipedia and google calculator)

Kinetic energy would be about 2* 10^24 joules, which is about 500 Teratons of TNT (500 000 000 Megatons) Yikes!

Well, they won't do it again, will they!

Posted by Tony (UK) 2007-01-21 20:40|| 2007-01-21 20:40|| Front Page Top

23:49 JosephMendiola
23:36 JosephMendiola
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:17 Phineter Thraviger
22:59 Old Patriot
22:54 tu3031
22:51 Old Patriot
22:34 mhw
22:07 USN, ret.
22:02 USN, ret.
22:00 KBK
21:57 Angie Schultz
21:55 Frank G
21:55 Frank G
21:54 JosephMendiola
21:51 JosephMendiola
21:48 JosephMendiola
21:46 USN, ret.
21:40 trailing wife
21:38 USN, ret.
21:36 Angie Schultz
21:25 trailing wife
21:22 BA
21:21 BA