Bunker Busters probably failed to penetrate Iranian concrete(popularmechanics.com)
popularmechanics.com
Bunker Busters probably failed to penetrate Iranian concrete
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a65172594/ultra-strong-concrete-stops-bunker-busting-bombs/
99 comments
It's important to add that it isn't just concrete -- but the relevant installation was under ~100m of granite.
There were also a caravan of trucks removing large amounts of items before the raid. There are estimates Iran has 600 kg of enriched uranium. One kg of uranium is about the size as a kg of gold, or the size of a phone. So they probably removed some of the harder to replace equipment. Could have been anything. Servers, weapons and ammunition, etc.
Centrifuge manufacturing has come a long way in the previous 20 years. Precision machining has newer models with up to 200,000 rpm. "Centrus (formerly USEC) plans a centrifuge with 60 cm diameter, 12 m height and 900 m/s peripheral speed." Even with their centrifuge manufacturing facilities hit/destroyed, they could reconstitute within a year or two and continue the refinement process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zippe-type_centrifuge
Centrifuge manufacturing has come a long way in the previous 20 years. Precision machining has newer models with up to 200,000 rpm. "Centrus (formerly USEC) plans a centrifuge with 60 cm diameter, 12 m height and 900 m/s peripheral speed." Even with their centrifuge manufacturing facilities hit/destroyed, they could reconstitute within a year or two and continue the refinement process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zippe-type_centrifuge
200,000 revolutions per minute?
Boggles the mind that this is 3,333 revolutions per second.
I'm not saying you're wrong but a quick check of a few LLMs says that 90,000 RPM is widely cited as the practical upper limit for current operational centrifuges in facilities like those operated by Urenco, Rosatom, or Orano.
900m/s is approx Mach 1.5.
Boggles the mind that this is 3,333 revolutions per second.
I'm not saying you're wrong but a quick check of a few LLMs says that 90,000 RPM is widely cited as the practical upper limit for current operational centrifuges in facilities like those operated by Urenco, Rosatom, or Orano.
900m/s is approx Mach 1.5.
You can buy a lab centrifuge (such as Optima MAX from Coulter) that does 150 000 RPM, (or as a more useful measure, about a million g). These are often used for virus purification.
But isotope separation is usually done on UF6, which is a gas. These centrifuges work a bit differently, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zippe-type_centrifuge
But isotope separation is usually done on UF6, which is a gas. These centrifuges work a bit differently, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zippe-type_centrifuge
While I don't know much about centeifuges, I'm still in awe that this Hikoki handheld blower does 90k rpm: https://www.hikoki-powertools.com/products/powertools/li-ion...
That's not a typo, I actually own this device and couldn't believe at first this thing spins with ninety thousand rpm. A lot has happened since my last 5400rpm hdd bit the dust.
That's not a typo, I actually own this device and couldn't believe at first this thing spins with ninety thousand rpm. A lot has happened since my last 5400rpm hdd bit the dust.
I'm actually wondering why it's "only" buried under ~100m (which is already on the higher end of the depth estimates).
Why not pick a mountain where you install the bunker 300m under the peak ?
The way I understand it, is that they drill horizontally, so it doesn't really matter how high the mountain is, but it does matter how high it is for protection obviously.
Why not pick a mountain where you install the bunker 300m under the peak ?
The way I understand it, is that they drill horizontally, so it doesn't really matter how high the mountain is, but it does matter how high it is for protection obviously.
The mountain itself is ~80m to base, and the 20m comes from assuming that trucks are just driving down into it (so a gradient down to -20m on the road). If you had deeper, you'd need to then have more complex transport mechanisms underneath the mountain.
The assumption is that they haven't done that -- but it's not implausible to add some multiple of 10m on to the estimate.
I'd imagine they studied bunker buster arms in the design, and very probably concluded, that there wasn't much need to go very deep. Demolishing 80m of granite alone is a nuclear-sized problem, +20m and maybe 10m of specialised concrete, i'd imagine is fine.
It's also highly likely that the design of the installation is robust against collapse, eg., designed so that small areas can collapse independently. So even with arms which could penetrate that deep, you'd need a large number.
I think it's plausible that the entire supply of bunker busters the US currently has could do the job, but I highly doubt the US would risk depleting its capacity on a "maybe" of this kind.
The whole operation was a performance to try a carrot rather than stick approach with israel
The assumption is that they haven't done that -- but it's not implausible to add some multiple of 10m on to the estimate.
I'd imagine they studied bunker buster arms in the design, and very probably concluded, that there wasn't much need to go very deep. Demolishing 80m of granite alone is a nuclear-sized problem, +20m and maybe 10m of specialised concrete, i'd imagine is fine.
It's also highly likely that the design of the installation is robust against collapse, eg., designed so that small areas can collapse independently. So even with arms which could penetrate that deep, you'd need a large number.
I think it's plausible that the entire supply of bunker busters the US currently has could do the job, but I highly doubt the US would risk depleting its capacity on a "maybe" of this kind.
The whole operation was a performance to try a carrot rather than stick approach with israel
But why not pick another mountain of ~300m ? Are there any downsides to that ?
That would be beyond any reasonable doubt that it cannot be destroyed (even with nukes ? ), which would make more sense to me. And the country is surely big enough to find one suitable for that.
That would be beyond any reasonable doubt that it cannot be destroyed (even with nukes ? ), which would make more sense to me. And the country is surely big enough to find one suitable for that.
The specific composition of this specific mountain range in Fordow made it almost ideal for this purpose. It's not only the depth, but also the rock type, the fact that the rock layers were compressed, and overall accessibility - all of these limit the selection space for 'deep holes in the ground for building a nuclear facility'.
Also, you need to take into account an important fact: It is in Iran... There may be other, better locations on Earth, but having sovereignty on the land is key:)
Well, what they choose to dig was deep enough, wasn't it? And that's really what matters.
This headline has been circulating but it's "technically correct but entirely wrong".
You don't destroy a facility by bombing through concrete and exploding it. This isn't an action movie.
You overpressure the structure with a shockwave.
By targeting the vents, we've produced a 200m crater showing that the shockwave did violate the facilities containment. That place is gone.
This is the same sort of silly as "but they didn't blow up the reactors!" No, they intentionally avoided them to avoid throwing radiological material into civilian areas.
We can detect a pencil size rod of uranium from satellite and plane - because we've informed countries when they have had radiological leaks. If Iran moved any meaningful material (doubtful, uranium is hard to transport when enriched..) then the US knows where.
You don't destroy a facility by bombing through concrete and exploding it. This isn't an action movie.
You overpressure the structure with a shockwave.
By targeting the vents, we've produced a 200m crater showing that the shockwave did violate the facilities containment. That place is gone.
This is the same sort of silly as "but they didn't blow up the reactors!" No, they intentionally avoided them to avoid throwing radiological material into civilian areas.
We can detect a pencil size rod of uranium from satellite and plane - because we've informed countries when they have had radiological leaks. If Iran moved any meaningful material (doubtful, uranium is hard to transport when enriched..) then the US knows where.
Ok. So it's just tactical that the commander in chief foreshadowed the bombing?
1. With 40+ refueling craft in the air, everybody understood what was happening
2. The facilities are dual use. Bombing IRGC is fair game, bombing Bobby the Janitor or James the Steam Engineer is not. Giving a warning so personnel can evac is normal.
2. The facilities are dual use. Bombing IRGC is fair game, bombing Bobby the Janitor or James the Steam Engineer is not. Giving a warning so personnel can evac is normal.
Can we detect uranium when it is transported in shielded containers?
It's uranium gas (because this is part of enriching) so it has to be shielded gas containers. Those require special handling.
If they had moved a few KG it's reasonable for the containers to be heavily shielded but 400KG? Not a chance, that would be hundreds of trucks and tons of specialized equipment.
If they had moved a few KG it's reasonable for the containers to be heavily shielded but 400KG? Not a chance, that would be hundreds of trucks and tons of specialized equipment.
I don’t think people realize this is going to escalate the conflict. There are other bunker busters that can do the job, but they are all nuclear.
>this is going to escalate the conflict.
Sure, if by "this" you mean media and a segment of the population harping on how the strike did little or nothing.
After the strike and before this reporting Israel could justify deescalation by saying the nuclear program was crippled and Iran could justify deescalation by acting like it was no big deal and they lobbed counter strikes to great effect (lol) and the US could justify deescalation with the usual "look what happens to brown foreigners who cross us and our buddies" schtick and from there the matter could be quietly dropped, at least as much as such things can be.
That may all still happen, but all this rhetoric about how the strikes were ineffective is driving things toward escalation.
Sure, if by "this" you mean media and a segment of the population harping on how the strike did little or nothing.
After the strike and before this reporting Israel could justify deescalation by saying the nuclear program was crippled and Iran could justify deescalation by acting like it was no big deal and they lobbed counter strikes to great effect (lol) and the US could justify deescalation with the usual "look what happens to brown foreigners who cross us and our buddies" schtick and from there the matter could be quietly dropped, at least as much as such things can be.
That may all still happen, but all this rhetoric about how the strikes were ineffective is driving things toward escalation.
After the strike and before this reporting Israel could justify de-escalation by saying the nuclear program was crippled...
Except Netanyahu doesn't appear to want to de-escalate. And has a long history of repeatedly declaring Iran is only X weeks away from a practical nuke to justify immediate strikes.
Except Netanyahu doesn't appear to want to de-escalate. And has a long history of repeatedly declaring Iran is only X weeks away from a practical nuke to justify immediate strikes.
Netanyahu can want whatever he wants but a "serious" war with Iran is not within the practicalities of his domestic political situation unless someone else (the US) is picking up the tab.
The media is reporting the world as it is, not the world as it should be. It's not their job to de-escalate. Kinda silly IMO to blame the people writing articles instead of blaming the people dropping bombs and launching missiles.
I’d sure like to know what you are reading and watching that has caused you to form this conclusion.
Almost every national or international report I see and read has a distinct narrative threaded through it. Just look at descriptives and word choice.
“ICE Barbie” etc…
Almost every national or international report I see and read has a distinct narrative threaded through it. Just look at descriptives and word choice.
“ICE Barbie” etc…
I have seen the term "ICE barbie" on social media, but I don't consider that a credible source.
Obviously everything you hear from someone else, whether it's published in the newspaper or a passing comment from your neighbor, it's going to be filtered through their ideas, beliefs, and goals.
Some people have a goal to communicate accurately and limit their bias. Other people find it more important to get ad clicks or upvotes.
Obviously everything you hear from someone else, whether it's published in the newspaper or a passing comment from your neighbor, it's going to be filtered through their ideas, beliefs, and goals.
Some people have a goal to communicate accurately and limit their bias. Other people find it more important to get ad clicks or upvotes.
There are a lot of what I would call left leaning news sites that only refer to Krist Noem by that name. Not just social media.
Just do a google search for the phrase and qualify it with news results only. Lots and lots of well known news outlets are using it regularly to refer to her.
I am not saying this is a one-sided thing only on the left. It’s on the other side too. The “ICE Barbie” was the most obvious recent example that I have been seeing.
Just do a google search for the phrase and qualify it with news results only. Lots and lots of well known news outlets are using it regularly to refer to her.
I am not saying this is a one-sided thing only on the left. It’s on the other side too. The “ICE Barbie” was the most obvious recent example that I have been seeing.
Care to provide some sources for these wild statements? Got an AP article where they use that as her name? Maybe we just have a different definition of credible news sources.
Just do what what I said. Google the term, limit it to “news”. See the sources using it and see if they are well known and are considered “credible” on your opinion.
What you will see is msn, nj.com, telegraph, yahoo news, TNR, metro.co.uk, Toronto Sun, New York Sun using it
What you will see is msn, nj.com, telegraph, yahoo news, TNR, metro.co.uk, Toronto Sun, New York Sun using it
[deleted]
> The media is reporting the world as it is
Do you honestly believe this?
Do you honestly believe this?
no, because it's much more complicated than can be summed up in a hn comment. "the media" is not a real thing, it's just a term that refers vaguely to a very large collection of different people, each of whom has different beliefs, ideas, and goals. What they write/say will be filtered through those beliefs, ideas, and goals.
If my neighbor, who grew up in Canada, says "it's not very cold out today", he is attempting to describe the world as it is. Is he correct? If I consider him to be incorrect, it doesn't follow that he is trying to mislead me.
If my neighbor, who grew up in Canada, says "it's not very cold out today", he is attempting to describe the world as it is. Is he correct? If I consider him to be incorrect, it doesn't follow that he is trying to mislead me.
I agree with you, while it is complicated, news organizations should and are reporting the facts (we are discussing them here). I think some people in "media" are probably using hot-button adjectives to get at Trump, and to his discredit it seems to be working.
As somebody who knows a lot of journalists I can report that I haven't met any journalist who spilled the beans on that cabal who conspires to report on a false world.
I have heard them talk so negatively on the owners and chief editors of populist media such as Murdock, Berlusconi, Springer that I have just cut them completely out of my news consumption.
I have heard them talk so negatively on the owners and chief editors of populist media such as Murdock, Berlusconi, Springer that I have just cut them completely out of my news consumption.
If the rhetoric is actually true then it’s not just rhetoric and things will escalate regardless based on the facts on the ground. If it’s not true then yes you would have a point, maybe.
But is it true?
Trump's goal is just to prop up his base, like any normal politician. He dropped a big bomb, made a big announcement, his base will be happy.
Netanyahu's goal is to either occupy or destroy the Islamic world. He's smart enough to know he has to do it in baby steps. He's been working the long game on this for decades. So he'll notch this up as a win, and already be working on his next plan.
I don't see an imminent escalation, unless Iran itself escalates things (in ways other than economic)
Netanyahu's goal is to either occupy or destroy the Islamic world. He's smart enough to know he has to do it in baby steps. He's been working the long game on this for decades. So he'll notch this up as a win, and already be working on his next plan.
I don't see an imminent escalation, unless Iran itself escalates things (in ways other than economic)
> His base will be happy
No…Trump’s base didn’t want this. They might not pull back support if the deescalation holds (because he is scratching their other itches) but the MAGA base are definitely not excited about more war and conflict for the US.
MAGA is not neocon.
No…Trump’s base didn’t want this. They might not pull back support if the deescalation holds (because he is scratching their other itches) but the MAGA base are definitely not excited about more war and conflict for the US.
MAGA is not neocon.
MAGA is whatever the fuck Donald Trump tells them to be.
Hypocrisy or inconsistency have already never stopped the Republican party and they will most certainly not stop the most extreme version of it.
- https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trump-posts-bom...
- https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1147408825006...
Hypocrisy or inconsistency have already never stopped the Republican party and they will most certainly not stop the most extreme version of it.
- https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trump-posts-bom...
- https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1147408825006...
Hypocrisy is rampant in both parties and if you believe beyond his most extreme base that Trump’s whims control the bulk of the people who voted for him, I’d say you dont know many Trump voters.
Almost every Trump voter I know voted for him as the lesser of two evils.
Almost every Trump voter I know voted for him as the lesser of two evils.
From a European perspective you have one party which is completely delusional and another party which seems unable to capitalize on that.
How anybody can consider voting for Trump as a lesser evil is just incomprehensible.
How anybody can consider voting for Trump as a lesser evil is just incomprehensible.
I didn’t vote for him or Harris. I didn’t vote for her because she failed in the most important duty that she had as VP—which was to become the president when it was apparent that he couldn’t do the job.
She should have raised a flag…she had the media access to do it, but stayed silent. She put her party over her country.
She should have raised a flag…she had the media access to do it, but stayed silent. She put her party over her country.
Depends on what direction your personal "evil" axis points in.
Is not prosecuting crimes more evil, or is jailing people more evil?
Is not trusting science more evil, or is trusting (at least partly) wrong science more evil?
Is hiring people with lesser qualifications more evil, or is letting structural inequality persist more evil?
Is letting evil persist in the world more evil, or is foreign military intervention more evil?
Those are not questions with objectively verifiable answers. The answers depend on your values system. If someone has answers that you disagree with, that does not inherently mean that their values system is stupid or immoral or wrong.
Note well: I'm not saying that Trump is a good answer. Even plenty of people who voted for him don't think he's a good answer. But some like his actions during his first term better than they liked Biden's actions.
Is not prosecuting crimes more evil, or is jailing people more evil?
Is not trusting science more evil, or is trusting (at least partly) wrong science more evil?
Is hiring people with lesser qualifications more evil, or is letting structural inequality persist more evil?
Is letting evil persist in the world more evil, or is foreign military intervention more evil?
Those are not questions with objectively verifiable answers. The answers depend on your values system. If someone has answers that you disagree with, that does not inherently mean that their values system is stupid or immoral or wrong.
Note well: I'm not saying that Trump is a good answer. Even plenty of people who voted for him don't think he's a good answer. But some like his actions during his first term better than they liked Biden's actions.
Israel has already obliterated Iranian air defense and flattened the surroundings.
Can someone tell me why the US or Israel can’t just fly in a Seal Team that goes into the facility, plants a bunch of C4 and calls it a day? They can surely ringfence and defend the area by putting fighter jets and a couple hundred drones in the air while the operation is ongoing.
Can someone tell me why the US or Israel can’t just fly in a Seal Team that goes into the facility, plants a bunch of C4 and calls it a day? They can surely ringfence and defend the area by putting fighter jets and a couple hundred drones in the air while the operation is ongoing.
Probably because the last time the USA tried something like this, they lost 8 soldiers and about the same number of helicopters.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
Note for those not clicking, the failure had absolutely nothing to do with resistance from Iran, or anything Iran did. It had to do with operational issues, including 3 failed helicopters out of the 8. Upon Carter accepting recommendations to abort, a 4th crashed resulting in the 8 soldiers lost.
This happened 45 years ago, with different gear, and a lot of operations between now and then. It should have zero impact on any decision to go into Iran or not.
Of course, whether the US would go in is still a valid question, including other aspects of risk.
This happened 45 years ago, with different gear, and a lot of operations between now and then. It should have zero impact on any decision to go into Iran or not.
Of course, whether the US would go in is still a valid question, including other aspects of risk.
Indeed the failed Iran hostage rescue led directly to the formation of special operations specific helicopter units and training doctrine we have today.
And it's a really, really, really sore subject in Iran so even if it "goes well" it represents a much larger escalation than doing the same thing in a different country would.
Well, "special operations" that involves foreigners running around in sovereign countries setting of bombs tend to be a sore subject in most countries I can think of, not sure Iran is very special in that regard.
>Well, "special operations" that involves foreigners running around in sovereign countries setting of bombs tend to be a sore subject in most countries I can think of, not sure Iran is very special in that regard.
The entire point of making the comparison to "doing the same thing in another country" rather than nothing or some alternative course of action was to head off this specific nitpick.
The US already tried that thing once in the early days of the current regime (literally linked in the comment I initially replied to!) and it's one of the bigger reasons we don't have normalized relations with them, though it's perhaps a distant second to the 800lb gorilla with a little hat in the region.
The entire point of making the comparison to "doing the same thing in another country" rather than nothing or some alternative course of action was to head off this specific nitpick.
The US already tried that thing once in the early days of the current regime (literally linked in the comment I initially replied to!) and it's one of the bigger reasons we don't have normalized relations with them, though it's perhaps a distant second to the 800lb gorilla with a little hat in the region.
Wasn't the operation planned, to rescue hostages that the regime wasn't capable of protecting? In fact, didn't care to protect? Wikipedia seems to say so.
After all, you're supposed to police your own residents, and keep them from invading embassies, which are foreign turf. You're also supposed to respect that aspect of diplomacy. Letting your citizens raid an embassy and kidnap diplomats is the act of a banana republic, and definitely signals the end of diplomacy.
If the current regime is upset at someone trying to rescue their own people kidnapped from their embassy, then frankly that regime is insane. Iran is 100% at fault for allowing that to happen, not working quickly to resolve it. The US is 100% correct to have sent people in to rescue their own people, under those circumstances.
If the embassy was better armed, with more security, they'd be completely correct to shoot-to-kill every single person who stormed that embassy. Yet sending people in to rescue them after the fact is... wrong?
Hardly, and I sincerely doubt Iran is significantly upset still. Yelling about it, sure. Upset for real? No.
After all, it was a spectacular failure.
After all, you're supposed to police your own residents, and keep them from invading embassies, which are foreign turf. You're also supposed to respect that aspect of diplomacy. Letting your citizens raid an embassy and kidnap diplomats is the act of a banana republic, and definitely signals the end of diplomacy.
If the current regime is upset at someone trying to rescue their own people kidnapped from their embassy, then frankly that regime is insane. Iran is 100% at fault for allowing that to happen, not working quickly to resolve it. The US is 100% correct to have sent people in to rescue their own people, under those circumstances.
If the embassy was better armed, with more security, they'd be completely correct to shoot-to-kill every single person who stormed that embassy. Yet sending people in to rescue them after the fact is... wrong?
Hardly, and I sincerely doubt Iran is significantly upset still. Yelling about it, sure. Upset for real? No.
After all, it was a spectacular failure.
So does bombing them from the air and assassinating their senior leadership (and a number of civilians who had the misfortune to be standing near them at the time)!
I'm not sure, the last time the US did this it was in Pakistan and resulted in no escalation consequences whatsoever.
(mind you, the idea that a raid on a fortified facility, rather than lightly or undefended civilian buildings, would be an easy win, is the real delusion)
(mind you, the idea that a raid on a fortified facility, rather than lightly or undefended civilian buildings, would be an easy win, is the real delusion)
Just making it up but there could be people that are in the army of the country that you are dropping into so they might need to kill each other which will escalate it to another level probably
Because the Iranians blocked the entrances with soil. There are satellite photos showing dump trucks at the entrances and the entrances being covered over.
It was a clever move on the part of Iran, because an invading force would need to bring heavy equipment with them, which isn't going to happen.
It was a clever move on the part of Iran, because an invading force would need to bring heavy equipment with them, which isn't going to happen.
Well.. kinda? Makes me wonder about just dropping munitions on the entrance, or even just using conventional explosives.
And yes, I don't know the skill set to validate the thought. However, I have seen beaver dams cleared with dynamite, and there's a wide level of explosives which can be dropped or deployed on foot...
(People saying it would be violent, well sure, but so is dropping bunker busters...)
And yes, I don't know the skill set to validate the thought. However, I have seen beaver dams cleared with dynamite, and there's a wide level of explosives which can be dropped or deployed on foot...
(People saying it would be violent, well sure, but so is dropping bunker busters...)
Beaver dams are not several dozen tons of dirt. You are not going to C4 through several tons of loose dirt.
Sometging something playing too much COD
I’m only guessing here but I feel like the answer is risk.
There’s a big risk difference between boots-on-the-ground and flying over while pushing a button.
There’s a big risk difference between boots-on-the-ground and flying over while pushing a button.
Yes, why can't we "just" boots-on-ground invade one of the most secure locations in another country. I'm sure that won't have any consequences whatsoever and is a totally normal thing to suggest.
You mean cause an international incident...again?
Just like in the movies!
Yeah obviously bombing a state is an escalation of conflict.
I wonder how much the US taxpayer paid for 6 B2 bombers to drop 12 mega bombs for the benefit of Israel.
I wonder how much the US taxpayer paid for 6 B2 bombers to drop 12 mega bombs for the benefit of Israel.
Over and above the cost of maintaining the B2 fleet, at least $100 million for the mission, logistical support, munitions, plus the reported feint-mission using additional B2s on the westward route.
Not much more than is spent in training missions, I’d guess, and this training is much more valuable.
That said, I’m just a programmer and have no idea.
That said, I’m just a programmer and have no idea.
Can you point to a training mission where multiple aircraft & refueling flying tankers cross half the globe to drop multiple huge, presumably very expensive bombs ?
I doubt they are conducted that often at this scale.
I doubt they are conducted that often at this scale.
They do it all the time with simulated targets and ordnance.
I'm just a civilian on the internet but the total cost was much much more than a just the bomber flight. Getting the equipment and related crews across the globe to the target in a highly secure way is non-trivial. Just based on public info the preparations for potential retaliation were significant across many different US properties in the region and abroad.
I am not sure about the benefit of Israel. But it was impressive demonstration of power. I mean flying around half globe undetected and delivering huge bombs no one else has. I have hard time calculating dollar value of such future negotiation argument.
I’m not sure about this. B2s were heavily used in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as well, so Iran is well aware of their range. To me, I think this mission just demonstrates how little we get out of all that money. The small number of B2s, the extreme mission time, the relatively low payload, and the ultimate lack of clarity of success for this mission don’t make me feel like the US is particularly powerful or is spending its money well.
As a South American, I'm not impressed at all.
[deleted]
Demonstration of power?
We don't even know if it worked.
We don't even know if it worked.
What if the demonstration of power was for Americans?
C’mon stop being so naive. All the Middle East wars the US has fought has been for the benefit of Israel. Read project for a new American century. It laid out all the countries the US should take out for benefit of Israel. The only one we haven’t so far is Iran.
I think you got it backwards. Israël is just another military base for the US. Everything the US does "for Israël" is to keep a fat finger in the middle eastern porridge.
The base is not entirely in their control, but also doesn't shed US military lives when it stirs the pot. Using a local minority to project influence over their majority neighbors. A play as old as colonialism.
The base is not entirely in their control, but also doesn't shed US military lives when it stirs the pot. Using a local minority to project influence over their majority neighbors. A play as old as colonialism.
If that’s the case, then why does almost every US politician have an AIPAC handler? It’s obvious Israel is the one who controls our politicians, not the other way around.
I love it when two conspiracies start conflicting.
I heard a number of 260 million in an article, if that’s any help.
I think it's just the one nuclear bunker-buster (B61 mod 11).
"Get To Know America’s Long Serving B61 Family Of Nuclear Bombs" (2019)
https://www.twz.com/19263/get-to-know-americas-long-serving-...
> "The most recent operational variant, the B61-11, entered service in 1997 and is the first to dramatically differ in form, as well as function. The U.S. military treats this version as a combination tactical and strategic bomb even though it’s based on the B61-7 and reportedly has a single, maximum yield of approximately 340-400 kilotons."
> "The bigger difference, though, is that it has a significantly reinforced shell, possibly with a depleted uranium penetrating nose section, a delay fuzing system, and a booster rocket motor in the rear, all so it can break into deeply buried, hardened facilities. There are less than 100 of these bombs in existence, according to publicly available data, and the United States more or less built them with one specific target in mind."
> "In 1996, Russia finished work on its Kosvinsky Kamen bunker, part its so-called “continuity of government” plans to protect senior leadership in the event of a nuclear strike or other major emergency. Similar in concept and reportedly similarly—if not better—protected than the U.S. military’s Cheyenne Mountain Complex or Site R, also known Raven Rock, the Kremlin built it specifically to be hardened against nuclear weapons going off up above. The B61-11’s job was to put even those defenses beyond reach in what would likely already be an apocalyptic scenario."
> "Before the B61-11, the United States planned to use a much less elegant approach when it came to nuclear bunker busting, relying on aging B53 bombs, a design dating back to 1958 for this purpose. These 12-foot long, 4-foot wide, nearly 9,000 pound weapons would have used the sheer explosive power of their 9 megaton yield to create massive craters and crush underground targets. The U.S. government also explored using a modified B83-1, with its 1.2 megaton yield, for the role before deciding on the modified B61."
(The article also discusses the newer B61-12 as a potential substitute, although it's unclear as the key information is secret).
"Get To Know America’s Long Serving B61 Family Of Nuclear Bombs" (2019)
https://www.twz.com/19263/get-to-know-americas-long-serving-...
> "The most recent operational variant, the B61-11, entered service in 1997 and is the first to dramatically differ in form, as well as function. The U.S. military treats this version as a combination tactical and strategic bomb even though it’s based on the B61-7 and reportedly has a single, maximum yield of approximately 340-400 kilotons."
> "The bigger difference, though, is that it has a significantly reinforced shell, possibly with a depleted uranium penetrating nose section, a delay fuzing system, and a booster rocket motor in the rear, all so it can break into deeply buried, hardened facilities. There are less than 100 of these bombs in existence, according to publicly available data, and the United States more or less built them with one specific target in mind."
> "In 1996, Russia finished work on its Kosvinsky Kamen bunker, part its so-called “continuity of government” plans to protect senior leadership in the event of a nuclear strike or other major emergency. Similar in concept and reportedly similarly—if not better—protected than the U.S. military’s Cheyenne Mountain Complex or Site R, also known Raven Rock, the Kremlin built it specifically to be hardened against nuclear weapons going off up above. The B61-11’s job was to put even those defenses beyond reach in what would likely already be an apocalyptic scenario."
> "Before the B61-11, the United States planned to use a much less elegant approach when it came to nuclear bunker busting, relying on aging B53 bombs, a design dating back to 1958 for this purpose. These 12-foot long, 4-foot wide, nearly 9,000 pound weapons would have used the sheer explosive power of their 9 megaton yield to create massive craters and crush underground targets. The U.S. government also explored using a modified B83-1, with its 1.2 megaton yield, for the role before deciding on the modified B61."
(The article also discusses the newer B61-12 as a potential substitute, although it's unclear as the key information is secret).
Looks like tactical nukes is on the menu, boys...
Is probably what the Russian and Chinese reaction to a tactical nuke usage even if it was for bunker busting.
Is probably what the Russian and Chinese reaction to a tactical nuke usage even if it was for bunker busting.
I'm not sure Iran has many options for escalation left. Other than actually completing the nuke, which is something of a circular argument: they might escalate by building a nuclear weapon, but the only reason alleged for Israel escalating against them (which of course gets a free pass) is .. they're building a nuclear weapon. You can't escalate by doing something you're already doing.
It only counts as escalation if they weren't building a nuke but Israel bombing their nuke programme forced them to build a nuke?
It only counts as escalation if they weren't building a nuke but Israel bombing their nuke programme forced them to build a nuke?
Escalation is inevitable. Israel wants regime change. The US (Trump) simply wants Irans nukes gone. Israel has outsized influence in US policy and has shown they’re willing to escalate if things look like they may deescalate - this whole thing started because Israel decided to attack during negotiations.
The only way this deescalates is if the US is able to regain some sovereignty and remove the parasitic influences dragging us to war. From Trumps cabinet to the broader administration, military industrial complex, media and even many prominent billionaires like Adelson - there’s too many Zionists pulling the strings.
The only way this deescalates is if the US is able to regain some sovereignty and remove the parasitic influences dragging us to war. From Trumps cabinet to the broader administration, military industrial complex, media and even many prominent billionaires like Adelson - there’s too many Zionists pulling the strings.
Been saying that since before the bombing.
You can inherently dig deeper than you can bomb. Mines go miles down. The odds are not in your favour unless you know it’s shallow and soft - and administration is giving more yolo vibes than knowing vibes
You can inherently dig deeper than you can bomb. Mines go miles down. The odds are not in your favour unless you know it’s shallow and soft - and administration is giving more yolo vibes than knowing vibes
The HTML title is a better description of the article:
> Why the Strongest Bombs Can’t Crack [High] Performance Military Concrete
> Why the Strongest Bombs Can’t Crack [High] Performance Military Concrete
The Iranian state is playing the long game by letting Israel and the US celebrate their victories while they carry on with their plans. They will let the big boys bust a few rocks here and there if that's what it takes.
They lost their top military leaders. They can't possibly be happy.
They aren't but does it matter? iranian regime (similar to CCP) prioritize long term goals and regime survival - which makes sense if you actually have long term goals - while we count short term victories and wait for next election cycle and netflix/apple release.
Israel (and SA) are the only ones with skin in this game and won't be able to easily interfere forever. yes, iran has been massively infiltrated - kudos israel. But after all this recent spectacle, the regime will be focus on survival - this includes cleaning house and continue bomb building efforts.
Israel (and SA) are the only ones with skin in this game and won't be able to easily interfere forever. yes, iran has been massively infiltrated - kudos israel. But after all this recent spectacle, the regime will be focus on survival - this includes cleaning house and continue bomb building efforts.
Maybe a culling improves the quality of the crop?
Napoleon proved that having meritocracy in the battlefield leadership beats out old sullen generals that are there because they have always been..
Napoleon proved that having meritocracy in the battlefield leadership beats out old sullen generals that are there because they have always been..
> You can damage the entrances, take out the aerials, and cut off communication to a command bunker with hits in the right places. In military terms, it might as well be a crater, even if the occupants are unharmed.
This seems like nonsense. Rebuilding an entire facility from a crater is so much work that you may just as well build it elsewhere.
Fixing entrances and aerials seems trivial in comparison.
> Hypersonics are missiles which travel through the atmosphere at speeds in excess of Mach 5. Equipped with tungsten penetrators, they could act as “rods from God,” punching through layered concrete like an armor-piercing bullet. With no explosive warhead, such weapons do damage through kinetic energy alone.
Then what, though? Underground installations are not like bodies; you can't just expect to take one out by shooting through the brain, heart or lungs (which is hard enough to do as it is). Unless you're launching 100 non-explosive hypersonic missiles, you're probably not going to do much damage.
Maybe the hypersonic missile can be used to create a path for a normal warhead to penetrate to where the explosive can do the required amount of damage. That's going to require some pretty precise needle-threading, though.
Alternatively, the hypersonic missiles could have a core of extremely radioactive material.
This seems like nonsense. Rebuilding an entire facility from a crater is so much work that you may just as well build it elsewhere.
Fixing entrances and aerials seems trivial in comparison.
> Hypersonics are missiles which travel through the atmosphere at speeds in excess of Mach 5. Equipped with tungsten penetrators, they could act as “rods from God,” punching through layered concrete like an armor-piercing bullet. With no explosive warhead, such weapons do damage through kinetic energy alone.
Then what, though? Underground installations are not like bodies; you can't just expect to take one out by shooting through the brain, heart or lungs (which is hard enough to do as it is). Unless you're launching 100 non-explosive hypersonic missiles, you're probably not going to do much damage.
Maybe the hypersonic missile can be used to create a path for a normal warhead to penetrate to where the explosive can do the required amount of damage. That's going to require some pretty precise needle-threading, though.
Alternatively, the hypersonic missiles could have a core of extremely radioactive material.
Related:
Early US Intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44369735
Early US Intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44369735
I heard mention somewhere that 40 large trucks were at the site weeks before.
Was this attack just all for show, did they move everything?
Was this attack just all for show, did they move everything?
Given the extremely vibration sensitive nature of centrifuges, significant damage may still have been caused without the bombs penetrating the concrete. Although based on the latest report from the Pentagon it may only have set program back by months.
They are only sensitive to vibration while running, if turned off then just checks and re-calibration needed before turning them on again.
How do they deal with earthquakes?
Interesting discussion on concrete. I wonder whether additive manufacturing could help create stronger concrete structures.
Everything is signalling.