Nuclear penetrators are small yield, sub-surface detonated, shock-nuclear weapons. The delivery system is engineered so the weapon burrows into the ground before exploding. Thus some of the energy released is passed as a ground shock wave to destroy deeply buried installations.
It is worth noting a sub-surface explosion is the most 'dirty' of all nuclear detonations.
A direct result of this is the release of quantities of alpha and beta particles into the atmosphere, Chernobyl-on-purpose. The force of the explosion will force some percentage of these radioactive particles high into the atmosphere where they will rain down upon the earth (lucky us) for weeks, months, or decades. The uncertainty stems from the yield, how deep the bomb goes before exploding, and so on. In general, the more secure the target, the deeper it is buried, requiring a higher yield, deeper penetration, greater production - if that's the word I want - of radioactive particles, and the longer the persistence of these particles.
Persistence also depends on the chemical composition of the ground and sub-ground of the target. I no expertise in this, Migeru, DoDo, kcurie, and the other physicists here are your people to go to for that. What I do know is there would be some large-ish area requiring de-contamination.
De-contamination requires vast quantities of water, unavailable in large parts of the world, and a place to store vast quantities of slightly radioactive water, unavailable in any part of the world.
A further uncertainity is the number of targets that would be hit and whether the affects and effects of multiple targets are linear or non-linear. I haven't a clue and I don't know if anyone else does either.
I'm going to have to disagree with Jerome on this. I'd rather read by candlelight, bike to work, and communicate by pony express than live with this nuclear technolgy. The cons just do not outweigh the pros for me.
Unfortunately, what is done is done... Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
I agree with you on "yield" but I would caution you on the option of "deeper penetration". Simple physics tells us that we can´t "plan for" or "arrange" for deeper penetration.
Assuming the same material and bomb structure, the only way you can penetrate deeper is a higher velocity of the bomb. That of course will place a higher stress on the bomb equipment. Meaning that you run the risk that a part of the equipment might malfunction or - in a worst case - the bomb will simply break up.
Meaning that for a target buried deeper, you would have to use a higher yield nuclear bomb. Which will of course mean a much higher level of radioactive contamination above ground. :(
From what I´ve read on the Internet, all current American nuclear bunker busters rely on gravity to accelerate. Meaning that they don´t have a rocket engine, you simply release them from a high flying airplane and rely on gravity to build up velocity. There´s no way that such a bomb could bury deep enough and not release radioactive contamination even at low yields.
Second I'm guessing that bunker busters and the like have several stages. The first probably blows a hole into the ground so that the main part of the bomb can penetrate further. It is also possible it just could sit there and drill down. Who is going to stop it? Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
I never intended to leave the impression you could bury the weapon such that no radiation would escape into the atmosphere. As you say, that can't happen.
