Take a look inside the Finnish bunkers capable of withstanding a nuclear attack

[Duke Wellington]

5 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

No you havent, this is getting ridiculous.  You cant even stay consistent in what you are saying.  You clearly don't understand the science and are just reaching for any way to be right.  I'm not going to bother wasting any more time on you if you are going to be this sad, pathetic, and desperate to be right so you can pretend you know about a topic you clearly dont.

Its me that had to give you the science, its you that cannot be consistent lol.

[Grim Reaper 6]

10 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

Its me that had to give you the science, its you that cannot be consistent lol.

[Grim Reaper 6]

10 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

Its me that had to give you the science, its you that cannot be consistent lol.

Cookie Monster you  are a very comical dude, however on this topic  your knowledge is very limited.  

 

[Golden Duck]

On 5/18/2022 at 11:41 AM, Cookie Monster said:

Such analysis are available on the internet for all to see pre and after cold war. They are well publicised in the UK media, do a search of UK nuclear targets, and you will get plenty of hits.

Is it too hard for you to copy and paste to back up what you purport?

[ThereWeAreThen]

2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Is it too hard for you to copy and paste to back up what you purport?

Yes it is! You should count yourself lucky hes provided a couple of links!

[Grim Reaper 6]

On 5/18/2022 at 5:12 AM, Cookie Monster said:

60 feet down wont survive a ground nuke of a megaton, the crater is bigger than that.

I think you should reread the article in the OP,  because the repeated reference you make about Finnish Bunker only be being 600 Ft. deep is inaccurate. The reference to the bunker facility was only for that bunker which was included in the photos from,the article in the OP.  In addition to that, the bunker was designed as a Air-raid Shelter for the Finnish civilian population. So in retrospect There is no doctrine or special planning to destroy civilian civil defense Structures or to destroy other Bunkers using a Nuclear Weapons if the mission can be accomplished with a  conventional bomb.

Originally the GBU-43b ( MOAB ) was built to destroy above ground installations, equipment and personnel by creating a very very extreme over pressure area created by the bombs detonation.  However, discussions were held to determine if there was a possibility to build a Non-nuclear Massive Ordnance Penetrator ( MOP ) that could penetrate deep into the Earth and through reinforced concrete in order to destroy occupied bunkers and caves. The primary concern was about contamination of large areas,  from ground or low level radioactive fallout that would be created by using a Nuclear Weapon as a Ground Penetrating Bunker buster. 

Because if the Success the MOAB in Afghanistan in 2017, testing and strategic planning were initiated  to build a non-nuclear bunker busting penetrator using the designs of the MOAB as a basis for construction. Previously  the weapons of choice used to destroy enemy bunkers were also non-nuclear. This new weapon is called the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator or (MOP), which is a Non-Nuclear weaponized bunker buster 

Update - The GBU-43B ( Mother of All Bombs or MOAB )

Was used as a basic template to create the GBU-57

Specifications  of the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP),

1. The GBU-57 is 20.5 feet long with a diameter of 31.5 inches.

2.  The GBU-57 weighs a staggering 30,000 lbs.

3.  The Mop or GBU-57 will penetrate up to 200 feet of Reinforced Concrete at 5,000 pounds per square inch (PSI).

4.  According to the military analysis site Globalsecurity, just 6,000 lbs. of the big bomb's weight is the explosive used in the bunker busting penetrator.

The ‘Massive Ordnance Penetrator’ (MOP) Bunker Buster:n

nnhttps://www.ncnk.org/sites/default/files/NCNK_Issue_Brief_Bunker_ Buster_December_2009.pdf

https://www.ncnk.org/sites/default/files/NCNK_Issue_Brief_Bunker_ Buster_December_2009.pdf

On 5/18/2022 at 10:41 AM, Cookie Monster said:

If a nuclear power wants to hit a city or military base (not a battle group on the field) then why would they use a tactical nuke? We arent Japanese in wooden board and sheet metal homes in Nagasaki or Hiroshima. A 100 kiloton warhead is not going to wipe out one of our cities built of rebar brick, or reinforced concrete. You dont seem to realise what tactical nukes are used for. On the topic of building materials the USA should be very worried with its obsession of building homes out of wood.

No one said that a Tactical Nuclear Weapon would be used or was even needed to destroy a modern city. Based upon your comments it appears Cookie Monster that  you are very tired of you are suffering from some form of confused because nothing in my comments anywhere above in this thread can be quoted that says Tactical Nuclear Weapons are used to destroy modern cities!
 

On 5/18/2022 at 10:41 AM, Cookie Monster said:

The UK did scenario analysis on likely targets (on itself, not Finland) in a nuclear exchange with Russia. Such analysis are available on the internet for all to see pre and after cold war. They are well publicised in the UK media, do a search of UK nuclear targets, and you will get plenty of hits.

I find this to be very very interesting,  It appears the Russian Federation has been carrying out simulations themselves looking for vulnerability in the UKs Nuclear Defense Posture. Now it’s one thing for a Nation to look for vulnerabilities in their own defense posture,  and to also look for vulnerability in their enemies defense posture, what’s uncommon here is the fact that this simulation was made available to the audience of the entire free world:

“”In a segment called “The Sinkable Island,” Kiselyov taunted British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, accusing him of threatening Moscow with a nuclear strike (something that Johnson has not done, but fits with the Kremlin’s message to Russian citizens that the country is under attack by NATO and the Western world). He then showed an animated graphic striking the British Isles and eliminating them.””

“”Kiselyov also showed a simulation of a second missile, launched from an underwater nuclear-capable drone, which he said could carry up to a 100-megaton warhead. “The explosion of this thermonuclear torpedo off the coast of Britain will raise a giant wave up to 500 meters high,” Kiselyov claimed. “Such a water squall also carries extreme doses of radiation. Passing over the British Isles, it will turn what may be left of them into a radioactive desert.”

Sounds like Boris peed in someone’s Vodka, hope your practicing Duck and Cover drills!!

On 5/18/2022 at 10:41 AM, Cookie Monster said:

None of the targets have tactical nukes marked against them, they are ICBMs and SLBMs. I have a major military base near me (20km away) expected to take a 6 megaton SLBM which is the maximum yield warhead Russia can currently put on a SLBM. That would very likely kill me. London is expected to take multiple Satan`s which can carry a maximum yield of 18 megatons or multiple lower yield MIRVs. Satan-2 which they have recently come out with can carry up to a single 100 megaton warhead.

Well Cookie Monster if all you have are Major Military Bases near you, you will have plenty of time to kiss your butt good bye. The planning by all Nations Worldwide when considering a 1st Strike using Nuclear Weapons are hiw to target other Nations Nuclear Launch Facilities ( Missile silo’s and Submarine Based Nuclear Launch Platforms. It’s openly common knowledge that Nations again Worldwide do not place their Nuclear Launch Silo’s on Military Bases because of the catastrophic losses of soldiers that could occur.

As far as trying to predict the Weapons, Weapons Yield and the Launch Platforms that possible be used against the UK, is billions to one as far as odds are concerned. If those weapons and yields were once correct, as soon as they were openly discussed like you have done here, those plans were immediately changed.

Never forget Cookie Monster loose lips sink ships, and those who do fully understand OBSEC - Operational Security would never ever under any circumstances discuss such information online for any reason!!

You have much to consider and to learn! 

On 5/18/2022 at 10:41 AM, Cookie Monster said:

Just for your information BAE Systems makes nuclear bunkers here and to at least stand a chance of surviving a 1 megaton ground detonation your bunker has to be at least a kilometre away. And thats an actual bunker, not an underground fallout shelter. The sense of invincibility and naivety here is odd. People thinking 60 feet of dirt and a couple of metres of reinforced concrete on a civilian fallout shelter is going to stop a 1 megaton warhead detonated in its vicinity cracks me up. Its a megaton, its the same as 1 million tons of TNT.

I dont know where the BS some of you believe in comes from LMAO.

I have no idea where your information comes from concerning Nuclear Yields, of anything else you think you understand about this subject. However, What’s stranger Still, Is your attempt to try and Sound intelligent when discussing this subject. Because honestly as soon as you open your mouth and the noise of conversation begins to come out anyone with the most basic operational knowledge of this subject sees right through you attempt to guide it. Now what’s  Odd, Confusing, and in a way very very humorous is your attempt to discuss information you clearly and very obviously have no grasp upon.

I mean come in dude your walking around with a huge lighted sign that’s kick me, I am a Nuclear Weapons Subject Matter Expert!  When in reality the closest you have ever come to a Mushroom Cloud was after you finished a Large Mushroom Pizazz with double extra Mushrooms and farted!

Cookie Monster, this thread has reached 3 pages and the further it has professed the farther you carried it away from the intended topic as outlined in the thread's OP. I don’t claim to know why you did that, however I hope you discovered whatever it is you were looking for, I sincerely do!

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by Manwon Lender

[ethereal_scout]

With regards the OP

Shows you how much trust Finland has had in Russia all along.

[Grim Reaper 6]

On 5/19/2022 at 1:46 AM, Cookie Monster said:

Ground detonations do more damage to buildings over a smaller area, and produce large fallout particles.

When considering the use of a ☢️ Nuclear Weapon what purpose does a ground burst Nuclear serve?

On 5/19/2022 at 1:46 AM, Cookie Monster said:

Airbursts do less damage to buildings but over a wider area, start a large firestorm, and produce small fallout particles.

It all depends on the effect they want to go for, and we shouldn`t make assumptions as to what will be used. It depends if they want to annihilate or have something left to conquer, and if the city has a lot of below surface structures.

What’s the major difference between and Airburst and a Surface burst? 

[Golden Duck]

On 5/22/2022 at 7:15 AM, ethereal_scout said:

With regards the OP

Shows you how much trust Finland has had in Russia all along.

Or the other four permanent members of the UNSC.