If the radioactive substance is in a room hundreds of feet below ground, and the bomb makes that room cave in, how would radiation leak out?
Very. The Russians are jamming GPS all around Moscow to frustrate Ukrainian drones. With the result that cabdrivers can’t find destinations and sometimes airline flights are messed up too.
The trick is there’s GPS & there’s GPS. Futzing with the signal cab drivers’ cell phones use is different from futzing with the signal US military stuff uses. And anything military that uses GPS also has ways to cope with jamming in the terminal area. Given a nice tight fix including GPS data farther from the target, the alternate means of nav will remain accurate enough for the last few miles of travel to the target.
I have never seen a blast that originated hundreds of feet below ground, no. Have you?
When you detonate a bomb well underground, you don’t get much dust kicked up, and most it will be from the material above the bomb.
A recap of how these bunker-buster bombs work: They’re really heavy, with a significant part of the bomb taken up just by dense ballast, and they’re dropped from very high up. Because of just these two factors, they penetrate pretty far into the ground, like the Mother of All Lawn Darts. Once they’ve penetrated deeply, then and only then does the explosive (of which there’s also several tons-- These suckers are big) go off. Since it’s exploding undergound, the shockwave is both strong and close to the target.
Star Wars, A New Hope has a demo of the operation.
That’s what I thought of.
I bet there was a lot of “stay on target” chatter going on.
When uranium is being enriched, that is, further refined, it’s actually converted to a gas. Specifically uranium hexaflouride, which is easily made gaseous for further processing.
So the answer is that it won’t leak out as either a solid or liquid. It leaks out as a gas.
Although it’s entirely possible for a large explosion to create very fine dust particles, in which case sure, you could have a solid type of material leaking out as dust.
But it’s really the gas that’s going to escape easily.
Probably not that easily if you’re talking about the US military, who designed and built GPS primarily for their own use. The civilian applications are just a happy side-line which can be turned on, off, jammed, or distorted as the US military sees fit. Which is why there are a couple other nations, including Russia, trying to orbit an alternative that they can control instead of the US.
Behold. Underground nuclear test video.
Exactly how much surface activity you’ll get will depend on the depth of the detonation, what damage is done to what’s underground, what the terrain is composed of…
The bunker-busters won’t be quite that dramatic, not being nuclear, but collapse of underground structures can and does lead to subsidence, generates seismic waves, disturb surface features, and so forth.
A heavier than air gas will easily escape a cavern inside a deep hole in the ground with only a narrow entry tunnel?
Sure, if it’s propelled by blast forces. We’re not talking about it settling out in a room full of still air, it would be propelled by explosive forces.
Assuming, that is, the Iranians didn’t move as much of the uranium out of harm’s way as they could prior to the actual attack.
There are a number of aircraft capable of carrying a Bomb of this weight.
BUT…there is much, much more to be considered. Can the bomb be mounted correctly inside the aircraft (Special racks, wiring, release mechanisms, etc, etc).
Can the aircraft penetrate the airspace with a high degree of success? (Stealth, speed, range) Is the aircraft equipped to deliver the bomb and provide any need guidance to the bomb that is released? These are only a few of the factors to be considered. As a former AF munitions officer, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t want to use a B52 to be used this way, even if it was possible. Modern munitions and aircraft are far too sophisticated to just use them any old way.
Still a way to go. Perhaps not as far off as we might hope.
Underground nuclear tests by design seal off the shaft before being detonated. A bunker buster by definition creates an open shaft to the depth. It’s not the same as a blast that “just impacts on the surface” but there is still the risk of kicking up dust. Best scenario is that the bomb does not penetrate to the target, but sets off a shock wave that collapses the roof of the target below it.
I see in the damage assement pic shown on the press conference that there was a neat closely spaced set of three holes at one site. So presumably they did not aim to send each successive bomb down the same hole. Or did not succeed.
Bombing is an area where “close enough” potentially works just fine.
Well, some preliminary discussion indicated that the strikes would target ventilation shafts to get a few meters’ head start on penetration before starting the “crunching through concrete and dirt” process.
I can’t remember, but do those evenly spaced entry holes correspond to vent shafts?
“Nice grouping” vs. “Missed it by THAT much.”
NYT reports the preliminary damage assessment. Bombing sets program back by less than 6 months time, “The strikes sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings.” 12 bunker busters were dropped on Fordo on Saturday, leaving 6 aboveground visible craters behind.
Not that we have any evidence but how much damage did the machines at Fordo sustain?
Assuming the bombs did not actually penetrate the rooms, the effect would be like an earthquake. And depending on which Internet rando you believe, the MOP can generate a reading of 1.5, 2.5, 3.2-3.5, 5.1, or 6.0 on the Richter scale.