From: briand@anasaz.UCAR.EDU (Brian Douglass)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Minuteman Launch Center Surviablity
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:08:06 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az


From briand@anasaz.UCAR.EDU (Brian Douglass)

In article <1992Apr14.003117.22490@cbnews.cb.att.com> pyrdek@edinboro.edu writes:
>
>From pyrdek@edinboro.edu
>
>Does anyone have any information on the following:
>
>Survivability of Minuteman Launch Control Centers.
>     In particular,
> Has one ever been tested in an underground A-bomb test out
> on the Yucca Flats (or where ever the undergrond atomic
> bomb testing is conducted)?
>

Yucca flats is just one of many areas at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) where
US and Great Britain do they're nuclear testing.  

While I can't say about an actual test against a control center, this has
undoubtable been looked at.

Most people get the idea that a hole is drilled, a bomb is buried at the
bottom, and if the thing goes off as planned, it a success.  While this is
true most of the time, quite a few shots are HORIZONTAL instead of
vertical.  A large bore tunnel (30+ feet in diameter) is cut a few thousand
feet into the side of a mountain, with a device placed at the end.  Obviously
the deeper the tunnel for the larger the device.

The most striking thing you'll notice about these tunnels is that they get
larger the further you go in making a sideways cone.  The intention is to set 
up "packages" that are in line of sight with the device, usually to take a
radiation burst.  One problem with this, is not long after the radiation's
arrival, the blast hits.  Scientist and the GAO don't like it when
multi-million packages get torn to shreds by the blast.

To overcome this, a series of mechanical "traps" are initiated by the passage 
of some signal.  This could be radiation or the detonation signal to the
device.  Obviously these traps are out of the line of sight of the
packages, but once triggered, close down the tunnel.  Of course there are
multiples of these devices to provide depth.  They range from hinged doors
that 15+ feet in thickness that closed by the overpressure, to steel nets.

Now from the experience gain in keeping these blasts contained (all of this
called Containment Science), I'm sure it has been applied to command
control centers, though I can't say so unequivocally.

> Have any been tested using conventional HE to simulate
> either above or below ground detonation?

Back in the late 70's early 80's, when it looked like the MX was going to
based in Nevada, the AF ran a test where they detonated either 150 or 1500,
or 15,000 tons of explosives near Tonopah Nevada to simulate a nuclear attack
and determine ground suitability (I lean to 150 tons).  At the time, this
was the largest chemical explosion ever created.  Unfortunately, it was
surpassed when 500 tons of ammonia perclorate detonated at the Pepcon plant
in Henerson Nevada (southern armpit of Las Vegas).  At the time, no one
knew ammonia perclorate could explode, they assumed it just burned.
However, due to the heat of a fire, and proximity of the storage containers
creating a pressure build-up, bang it went.

>
>What accuracy was assumed for U.S.S.R. missle attack on this type
>of site?  And did it include penetrator (bunker buster) type
>warhead design?

As I remember, and its been a few years, the MX had CEP of 113 yards.  I
believe the assumption was that the Soviets could attain the same.  An
air-burst would be virtually useless against any "hardened" target.  Ground
bursts are the only way to go.  However, the trouble with this is
Fracticide.  Will followup weapons be destroyed by already detonating
devices?  If you stagger the attack, does that give your enemy time to
retailate?  Unfortunately, neither of these questions could ever be
definitively answered except by the real thing.  Not a good idea.  The
prevailing thought at the time was that Fracticide would not be an issue.
That the Soviets could pummel the silo farms and take out the command
bunkers with a first strike, leaving virtually no land based leg of the
Triad.  This is what led to the whole theory that a nuclear war was now
winnable.  I won't debate that here, but just say that increasing ICBM
accuracy is what led to the theory of a "window of vulnerabilty."

>I am not realy concerned about EMP or ionizing radiation effects, just the 
>pure mechanical effects (ground movement and over pressure effects)
>and possibly, if appropiate, thermal effects.
>
>If I am treading to close to some lines on security (I have heard a 
>rumor or two), only previously published sources (on the open market)
>should be quoted.

Yep these are all open sources.  The only trouble is convincing the Defense
Investigative Service of that sometimes!  But if you know where to look,
its all there.
-- 
"You want to know what's scary?  The Third World has 12 new members and
some of them are nuclear armed!"  Former US intelligence officer.

Brian Douglass			briand%anasaz.UUCP@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
				602-870-3330 X657