8 ms·
From what I read, they likely still couldn't penetrate the halls at Fordow, which are about 260 feet underground and encased in 30000psi concrete. Did we even d
by shmoe 1y ago
From what I read, they likely still couldn't penetrate the halls at Fordow, which are about 260 feet underground and encased in 30000psi concrete. Did we even do anything there?
- ruined 1y agoAP quoting Iranian officials reports no radiological contamination, which suggests the facilities weren't penetrated https://apnews.com/live/israel-iran-war-updates#00000197-95ac-d57e-a5f7-ffac2a620000 https://apnews.com/live/israel-iran-war-updates#00000197-95a...
- tptacek 1y agoYou wouldn't expect significant radiological contamination from bombing an HEU facility deep underground? This isn't like exposed reactor core material.
- siltcakes 1y agoThis bombing was for show. The US did not use the required munitions to destroy these targets. Not even close.
- margalabargala 1y agoThey dropped 12 of the GBU-57s. What would you recommend?
- sebmellen 1y ago12 of those bunker busters in succession? High chance the facilities really were destroyed.
- firesteelrain 1y agoThere are limited ways to destroy Fordow. US is only country to possess them
- cryptonector 1y agoThey do have reactors though, do they not? Hitting the spent fuel pools and/or the reactors would produce detectable radioactive contamination. The HEU? Not so much as its half-life is 700 million years, and the stuff is dense and will quickly settle down.
- adastra22 1y agoWhy would they have reactors? This is uranium enrichment, not plutonium production.
- cryptonector 1y agoWhy would they not have reactors? Plutonium bombs are more efficient than uranium bombs, so of course they should want to make some plutonium. Remember, they claim they need HEU for civilian reactors.
- adastra22 1y agoPlutonium bombs are massively more complex than a U-235 design.
- cryptonector 1y agoFor sure, but a) they have a civilian reactor program, which surely produces spent fuel, and if they run it with HEU then they probably have breeders, and they might think they can figure out how to make Pu bombs. After all, the W88 bomb design got leaked in the 90s, remember?
- jandrewrogers 1y agoThat does not follow. It is not like it is an active reactor. There is no reason there should be significant radiological contamination.
- simonh 1y agoThe facility enriches Uranium hexafluoride gas.
- cryptonector 1y agoWith a half-life between 700 million years (for U-235) and 4 billion years (for U-238). And it's dense stuff that will immediately settle on the ground. You're not going to detect it from afar.
- tus666 1y ago260ft is around 79m. The bombs can penetrate around 60m of concrete. So one bomb, probably not, but they are able to follow each other in quick succession meaning 2 or three should be able to do the job quite easily, with accurate GPS positioning.
- shmoe 1y agoahh.. in my mind it was multiple hits spread over an area. This does make more sense.
- margalabargala 1y agoMedia is reporting that 12 were dropped on Fordow
- jen729w 1y agoAlso, surely – I have no expertise – but you don't need to totally destroy the bunker to render the operation basically dead, right? The land, roads, ingress points, elevators, security, everything around here is now FUBAR. Okay so you didn't "destroy the bunker", but how many years until it's functional again?
- sdenton4 1y agoThe bombs don't dig a hole, removing all matter for the next bomb to dig its way deeper...
- jandrewrogers 1y agoThe point is not to dig a hole. Penetration depth is a function of compression strength of the medium. Every bomb leaves a path of debris in its wake with negligible compression strength that subsequent bombs can pass through before expending their energy.
- missedthecue 1y agoBut they compact the material beneath the explosion.
- crystal_revenge 1y agoWhich is precisely what makes the calculus of this so dangerous, something I don't think many people understand. Iran isn't actually a nation of pure evil, they are looking out for their own interests and on any given Sunday, are not particularly interested in starting a nuclear conflict. At the same time, understandably, their adversaries are not particularly interested in them having that option. The risk is when they are backed into a corner where using a nuclear weapon increasingly makes sense. In this case, if you bomb Fordow and can completely eradicate the nuclear weapons, you do eliminate the immediate nuclear risk (though not without creating a slew of new problems to deal with). But, if you fail you have now backed them into a corner where this might become an increasingly reasonable option. Either way the events of today are very likely to unfold in ways that forever change not only the dynamics of the middle east but global politics as a whole.
- Ancapistani 1y agoThis is a great comment IMO :) > Iran isn't actually a nation of pure evil, they are looking out for their own interests Exactly. I do my best to consider them an "adversary", not an "enemy" for just that reason. > The risk is when they are backed into a corner where using a nuclear weapon increasingly makes sense. I'd argue there are two risks: one is that this puts Iran in a position where, if the regime survives, they will feel (and rightfully so) that the only way to secure their position is to possess them. It also makes the same statement to other countries in similar positions. I don't think we have a better option, sadly, but it is a consequence of this action. Also, I don't think this makes a rational case for use. For possession, yes. For threatening to use them under certain conditions, yes - but the only rational use case for deploying nuclear weapons is if your opponent has already done the same. This became the case when the thermonuclear bomb was invented.
- z2 1y agoIn the region, it feels like Saudi Arabia and Turkey are going to be watching this very closely closely.
- 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]