In remote areas, if we can't penetrate deep enough, we can certainly crumble the entries to seal off whatever is deep in the Earth.
But in densely populated areas we can hardly crater the entire area. Especially if we aren't sure of the target. Anybody want to figure out what our press will do if the Iranians slap a "baby milk factory" sign on the rubble?
Strategypage notes one way that we can overcome those deep bunkers. Check out the EMP bomb:
Britain, which has taken the lead in developing EMP (ElectroMagnetic Pulse) devices, is testing a new EMP warhead with the United States. This weapon is intended for use in cruise missiles or UAVs, for attacks on enemy command and control centers. Some of these operations are in bunkers that are well protected from bombs. But an EMP device could at least damage some of the electronics used in those locations. An EMP warhead would also be useful when the target is surrounded by civilians, an increasingly common tactic with some governments, who know that Western governments are more reluctant to kill non-military personnel.
The Iranians look like they are working on EMP weapons. But we aren't the only nation vulnerable to such weapons. Could this make an aerial campaign more likely to succeed than I'd assumed? After all, we could afford to EMP a suspected target when throwing high explosives around just in case might seem a bit harsh and risk too much collateral damage.
So is all the talk of slow democracy promotion and Security Council resolutions designed to mask a military campaign that most people say could not work? And is the British EMP weapon one of the tools we will use to actually make an attack work?
