6 ms·

> I wonder if the bunker buster was used Most certainly was. It's underground (Fordow is ~60m?) so it's either that or nukes.

tehjoker 1y ago
the bunker buster, if used, will almost certainly be nuclear. estimated tonnage: 300 kt
- ggm 1y ago
  This is nonsense.
- arandomusername 1y ago
  The GBU-57 was most likely used, which is non nuclear
- p_ing 1y ago
  MOP is a conventional weapon, 30,000 lbs. Only the B-2 is rated to carry it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP
  - xnx 1y ago
    Genuinely surprised that Israel couldn't push one out of their c-130s
    - giantg2 1y ago
      Do they even have access to this variant? I thought they had access to the older ones that weren't as advanced.
      - YZF 1y ago
        They do not.
      - dingaling 1y ago
        The MOP isn't particularly 'advanced', it's basically refined version of the Korean-vintage Tarzon guided earthquake bombs. It's just too heavy for most military aircraft to carry. The IDF has the F-15I which has a centerline hard point rated for 5,000lb load. That's immense for a fighter but a magnitude too low for the MOP. There are a variety of smaller US penetrating bombs that the F-15 can handle, but they don't have the mass and structure to penetrate as deeply.
    - 1659447091 1y ago
      Don't think the C-130s can fly high enough with a single 30,000lb bomb. The graphic at bbc site show it would be dropped from about 12km (~40,000 ft) in order to gain the speed needed to drive it some 60m underground.
      - ahazred8ta 1y ago
        From 40,000 feet, the bomb would take ~ 50 seconds to fall and would impact at mach 1.5.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Israel hasn’t degraded Iranian air defenses that much. The stuff that can’t threaten a F-35 can still trouble a C-130.
      - energy123 1y ago
        Why do you say this? Israel only lost 1 drone.
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        C-130s are very large, slow targets.
        pclmulqdq 1y ago
        The US has B52s that are cheaper, but they used B2s for this operation. It seems they don't believe Iran's air defenses to be toothless.
        algorithmsRcool 1y ago
        You are correct but although the B52 can technically carry the GBU-57 MOP, but it was only done that way during the initial testing of the weapon. The B2 is the only aircraft the USAF actually uses for that munition in combat scenarios. Also the B2 is better suited for extreme endurance missions like this where the plane is in flight for >36 hours. It has a toilet, microwave and a cot for the pilots to use during the more mundane parts of the mission.
      - invalidname 1y ago
        According to Israel they fly freely in West/central Iran and use all the plains including F15/16. Initially they relied on the F-35's stealth but as of last week they claim air superiority.
      - tguvot 1y ago
        video shows how confused and disoriented are whatever SAM that survived https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1lb8mkc/irans_air_defense_launches_at_israeli_aircraft/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1lb8mkc/iran...
    - CyanLite2 1y ago
      Various sources are saying 6 to 12 of these bombs were used. So, you'd need a lot of C-130s and those planes are too slow to NOT get shot down.
    - p_ing 1y ago
      Israel doesn't have access to the MOP.
    - algorithmsRcool 1y ago
      The kinetics matter here. The B2 flies much higher than the C-130 which would aid the GBU-57 MOP (almost certainly used here) in it's ability to penetrate to maximum depth. 80% of the 15 ton weight of that bomb is just heavy metal to give it maximum energy as it borrows into the ground. Also, each B2 can carry 2 MOPs making it a better platform than a C-130, and that isn't even taking the stealth of the platform into account
      - xnx 1y ago
        > Also, each B2 can carry 2 MOPs Wow. That is amazing. 60,000 lbs. combined.
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  > almost certainly be nuclear Source:
- tehjoker 1y ago
  those of you hating on this comment, the conventional weapons could not possibly work, the facility is too deep
  - tempestn 1y ago
    Even after everyone corrected you with information on the specific ordinance used, you're doubling down?
    - tehjoker 1y ago
      they might be right, but that's why the attack failed and why there's a risk what I said might still come true i was listening to Al Jazeera, one of the DC flaks they interviewed gave an upper estimate of the facility depth as 1000 ft. The conventional device can go to something like 60m or 200 ft. 6 devices were dropped, they would have to have everything, including geology with repeated strikes on the same point, be perfect to get past 1000 feet, and then they probably would not destroy the whole facility. As far as I know, they don't even have a good map of the layout. hence, the only real option is a nuclear weapon. this is absolutely being considered inside the pentagon. our government is psychotic. a 1 kt nuclear weapon (laughably small, hiroshima was 15 kt) is 73x more powerful than a 30,000 lb bomb. they would be like, well, it's an underground explosion! The world will forgive us. it's so crafty and smart to use a nuke to stop a nuke (that doesn't exist). https://x.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1935741526191100181 https://x.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1935741526191100181 "The effectiveness of GBU-57s has been a topic of deep contention at the Pentagon since the start of Trump’s term, according to two defense officials who were briefed that perhaps only a tactical nuclear weapon could be capable of destroying Fordow because of how deeply it is located." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/19/trump-caution-on-iran-strike-linked-to-doubts-over-bunker-buster-bomb-officials-say https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/19/trump-caution-...
      - tempestn 1y ago
        Ok, I see the logic, but nuclear weapon use is the brightest red line in the world. If there's anything a government wouldn't be forgiven for, it's that. I can't imagine how the calculus for the US would work out in favor given the risk. (Of course that assumes rationality, which one could certainly argue is lacking, but even still.) Also 1000ft is an upper estimate, right? It's certainly possible the MOPs were sufficient.
ggm 1y ago
As I understand it enrichment is by gas centrifuge or thermal diffusion. An earthquake bomb would disrupt both. You wouldn't be starting the feed cycle up rapidly, but since we're told Iran has stockpiles, this goes to sustainable delivery of materials more than specific short term risk. As a strategy, I see this as flawed. A dirty bomb remains viable with partially enriched materials. (This does not mean to imply I support either bombing or production of weapons grade materiel. It's a comment to outcome, not wisdom)
- arandomusername 1y ago
  Iran is prone to earthquakes, would an earthquake bomb do more damage than that? Even if it just damages the centrifuges, as far as I see it, it would just delay their enrichment process, severely less than total destruction of their underground base.
  - ggm 1y ago
    Yes that's basically my point. They recalibrate, tighten the pipes, and flush the contamination back out of the chain. 6 to 8 weeks/days/whatever later it's back in cycle.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      If they can even get back in
- gh02t 1y ago
  Uranium, especially highly enriched uranium, is not very radioactive. That's one of the reasons its useful for weapons. UF6 is chemically really nasty, but it's heavy and also you have criticality issues that limit how much you can pack into a confined space before it explosively disassembles. That is to say, it would make an extremely poor dirty bomb that would do very little. It'd scare people of course but there are far easier things they could use to achieve that. Far more concerning is the possibility that they give it away to someone else. Enrichment is nonlinear, going from 60% to the 90% needed for weapons is a fairly trivial amount of work.
nopelynopington 1y ago
Whatever about bombing Iran with conventional weapons, being the first president since Truman to nuke another country would split Trumps support base, and also legitimize using nuclear weapons in regional conflicts which would be extremely bad news for Ukraine

tehjoker 1y ago

the bunker buster, if used, will almost certainly be nuclear. estimated tonnage: 300 kt

ggm 1y ago
This is nonsense.
arandomusername 1y ago
The GBU-57 was most likely used, which is non nuclear
p_ing 1y ago
MOP is a conventional weapon, 30,000 lbs. Only the B-2 is rated to carry it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-57A/B_MOP
- xnx 1y ago
  Genuinely surprised that Israel couldn't push one out of their c-130s
  - giantg2 1y ago
    Do they even have access to this variant? I thought they had access to the older ones that weren't as advanced.
    - YZF 1y ago
      They do not.
    - dingaling 1y ago
      The MOP isn't particularly 'advanced', it's basically refined version of the Korean-vintage Tarzon guided earthquake bombs. It's just too heavy for most military aircraft to carry. The IDF has the F-15I which has a centerline hard point rated for 5,000lb load. That's immense for a fighter but a magnitude too low for the MOP. There are a variety of smaller US penetrating bombs that the F-15 can handle, but they don't have the mass and structure to penetrate as deeply.
  - 1659447091 1y ago
    Don't think the C-130s can fly high enough with a single 30,000lb bomb. The graphic at bbc site show it would be dropped from about 12km (~40,000 ft) in order to gain the speed needed to drive it some 60m underground.
    - ahazred8ta 1y ago
      From 40,000 feet, the bomb would take ~ 50 seconds to fall and would impact at mach 1.5.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    Israel hasn’t degraded Iranian air defenses that much. The stuff that can’t threaten a F-35 can still trouble a C-130.
    - energy123 1y ago
      Why do you say this? Israel only lost 1 drone.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        C-130s are very large, slow targets.
      - pclmulqdq 1y ago
        The US has B52s that are cheaper, but they used B2s for this operation. It seems they don't believe Iran's air defenses to be toothless.
        algorithmsRcool 1y ago
        You are correct but although the B52 can technically carry the GBU-57 MOP, but it was only done that way during the initial testing of the weapon. The B2 is the only aircraft the USAF actually uses for that munition in combat scenarios. Also the B2 is better suited for extreme endurance missions like this where the plane is in flight for >36 hours. It has a toilet, microwave and a cot for the pilots to use during the more mundane parts of the mission.
    - invalidname 1y ago
      According to Israel they fly freely in West/central Iran and use all the plains including F15/16. Initially they relied on the F-35's stealth but as of last week they claim air superiority.
    - tguvot 1y ago
      video shows how confused and disoriented are whatever SAM that survived https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1lb8mkc/irans_air_defense_launches_at_israeli_aircraft/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1lb8mkc/iran...
  - CyanLite2 1y ago
    Various sources are saying 6 to 12 of these bombs were used. So, you'd need a lot of C-130s and those planes are too slow to NOT get shot down.
  - p_ing 1y ago
    Israel doesn't have access to the MOP.
  - algorithmsRcool 1y ago
    The kinetics matter here. The B2 flies much higher than the C-130 which would aid the GBU-57 MOP (almost certainly used here) in it's ability to penetrate to maximum depth. 80% of the 15 ton weight of that bomb is just heavy metal to give it maximum energy as it borrows into the ground. Also, each B2 can carry 2 MOPs making it a better platform than a C-130, and that isn't even taking the stealth of the platform into account
    - xnx 1y ago
      > Also, each B2 can carry 2 MOPs Wow. That is amazing. 60,000 lbs. combined.
ranger_danger 1y ago
> almost certainly be nuclear Source:
tehjoker 1y ago
those of you hating on this comment, the conventional weapons could not possibly work, the facility is too deep
- tempestn 1y ago
  Even after everyone corrected you with information on the specific ordinance used, you're doubling down?
  - tehjoker 1y ago
    they might be right, but that's why the attack failed and why there's a risk what I said might still come true i was listening to Al Jazeera, one of the DC flaks they interviewed gave an upper estimate of the facility depth as 1000 ft. The conventional device can go to something like 60m or 200 ft. 6 devices were dropped, they would have to have everything, including geology with repeated strikes on the same point, be perfect to get past 1000 feet, and then they probably would not destroy the whole facility. As far as I know, they don't even have a good map of the layout. hence, the only real option is a nuclear weapon. this is absolutely being considered inside the pentagon. our government is psychotic. a 1 kt nuclear weapon (laughably small, hiroshima was 15 kt) is 73x more powerful than a 30,000 lb bomb. they would be like, well, it's an underground explosion! The world will forgive us. it's so crafty and smart to use a nuke to stop a nuke (that doesn't exist). https://x.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1935741526191100181 https://x.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1935741526191100181 "The effectiveness of GBU-57s has been a topic of deep contention at the Pentagon since the start of Trump’s term, according to two defense officials who were briefed that perhaps only a tactical nuclear weapon could be capable of destroying Fordow because of how deeply it is located." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/19/trump-caution-on-iran-strike-linked-to-doubts-over-bunker-buster-bomb-officials-say https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/19/trump-caution-...
    - tempestn 1y ago
      Ok, I see the logic, but nuclear weapon use is the brightest red line in the world. If there's anything a government wouldn't be forgiven for, it's that. I can't imagine how the calculus for the US would work out in favor given the risk. (Of course that assumes rationality, which one could certainly argue is lacking, but even still.) Also 1000ft is an upper estimate, right? It's certainly possible the MOPs were sufficient.

ggm 1y ago

As I understand it enrichment is by gas centrifuge or thermal diffusion. An earthquake bomb would disrupt both. You wouldn't be starting the feed cycle up rapidly, but since we're told Iran has stockpiles, this goes to sustainable delivery of materials more than specific short term risk. As a strategy, I see this as flawed. A dirty bomb remains viable with partially enriched materials. (This does not mean to imply I support either bombing or production of weapons grade materiel. It's a comment to outcome, not wisdom)

arandomusername 1y ago
Iran is prone to earthquakes, would an earthquake bomb do more damage than that? Even if it just damages the centrifuges, as far as I see it, it would just delay their enrichment process, severely less than total destruction of their underground base.
- ggm 1y ago
  Yes that's basically my point. They recalibrate, tighten the pipes, and flush the contamination back out of the chain. 6 to 8 weeks/days/whatever later it's back in cycle.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    If they can even get back in
gh02t 1y ago
Uranium, especially highly enriched uranium, is not very radioactive. That's one of the reasons its useful for weapons. UF6 is chemically really nasty, but it's heavy and also you have criticality issues that limit how much you can pack into a confined space before it explosively disassembles. That is to say, it would make an extremely poor dirty bomb that would do very little. It'd scare people of course but there are far easier things they could use to achieve that. Far more concerning is the possibility that they give it away to someone else. Enrichment is nonlinear, going from 60% to the 90% needed for weapons is a fairly trivial amount of work.

nopelynopington 1y ago

Whatever about bombing Iran with conventional weapons, being the first president since Truman to nuke another country would split Trumps support base, and also legitimize using nuclear weapons in regional conflicts which would be extremely bad news for Ukraine