Making Fortifications Viable in the Arms Race Again

As the title suggests, I'm trying to make the bunker viable in the arms race again. Note that does not mean it has to be indestructible.

While some may contend that the bunker will lose the arms race eventually, or that it's better to just burrow deep in the earth. To this, I say: I do not want to take an absolutist position and create a bunker that is 100% indestructible forever.

So what exactly am I asking? I'm simply trying to encourage thoughtful speculation on this question:

"what experimental / theoretical materials could create a really strong fortification?"

Assuming:

• very high budget
• known to science, but not necessarily able to synthesize by humans
• emerging technologies, i.e. nano-technology
• combat involves: nuclear weapons, smart bombs (bunker busters)
• Intensity of combat: high intensity (nukes) followed by periods of attrition
• location, earth depth, asymmetric information, war theory are considered out of scope. The primary focus is on cutting-edge materials (you can use war theory or earth depth, ect to justify your choice of cutting-edge materials of course)

If you are still not quite sure what I mean, let me give a specific example:

Example Answer: Imagine if scientists/engineers could create a 100 meter thick barrier using material from a neutron star (super dense). What resistance would this provide against a nuclear missle? This type of answer is within the scope of the question, because the type of material is known to science, but it has not been synthesized yet. So, in other words, you are free to speculate about the strongest materials (chemical bond or other) in the universe as long as it's not pure fantasy.

Remember, it's just an example answer for clarification purposes. You do not have to conform to it that rigidly. Feel free to use your imagination!

posted about 7 years ago

Arash Howaida‭

1 reputation 36 0 0 0