25 ms·
Bunker Busters probably failed to penetrate Iranian concrete
- adrianN 1y agoInteresting discussion on concrete. I wonder whether additive manufacturing could help create stronger concrete structures.
- bell-cot 1y agoThe HTML title is a better description of the article: > Why the Strongest Bombs Can’t Crack [High] Performance Military Concrete
- m_a_g 1y agoI 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.
- dragonelite 1y agoLooks 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.
- 4gotunameagain 1y agoYeah 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.
- lnsru 1y agoI 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.
- skywhopper 1y agoI’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.
- owebmaster 1y agoAs a South American, I'm not impressed at all.
- sixQuarks 1y agoC’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.
- navane 1y agoI 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.
- runlaszlorun 1y ago
- jddddam 1y agoIsrael 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.
- nmfisher 1y agoProbably 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
- potato3732842 1y agoAnd 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.
- pjc50 1y agoI'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)
- diggan 1y agoWell, "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.
- pjc50 1y agoSo 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)!
- potato3732842 1y ago>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.
- nkrisc 1y agoBut is it true?
- lantry 1y agoThe 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.
- mingus88 1y ago> The media is reporting the world as it is Do you honestly believe this?
- lantry 1y agono, 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.
- pjc50 1y agoI'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?
- perihelions 1y agoI 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-b61-family-of-nuclear-bombs 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).
- aosixnskak 1y agoEscalation 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.
- mjburgess 1y agoIt's important to add that it isn't just concrete -- but the relevant installation was under ~100m of granite.
- TheAlchemist 1y agoI'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.
- gadilif 1y agoThe 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:)
- Arnt 1y agoWell, what they choose to dig was deep enough, wasn't it? And that's really what matters.
- mjburgess 1y agoThe 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
- skeezyboy 1y ago[dead]
- dinfinity 1y ago> 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.
- n1b0m 1y agoGiven 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.
- candlemas 1y agoHow do they deal with earthquakes?
- concerned_user 1y agoThey are only sensitive to vibration while running, if turned off then just checks and re-calibration needed before turning them on again.
- mkl95 1y agoThe 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.
- seunosewa 1y agoThey lost their top military leaders. They can't possibly be happy.
- 627467 1y agoThey 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.
- Akasazh 1y agoMaybe 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..
- Havoc 1y agoBeen 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
- nickdothutton 1y agoEverything is signalling.
- aaron695 1y ago[dead]
- ChrisArchitect 1y agoRelated: Early US Intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44369735 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44369735
- vorpalhex 1y agoThis 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.
- adrianN 1y agoCan we detect uranium when it is transported in shielded containers?
- vorpalhex 1y agoIt'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.
- Akasazh 1y agoOk. So it's just tactical that the commander in chief foreshadowed the bombing?
- vorpalhex 1y ago1. 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.
- tmaly 1y agoI heard mention somewhere that 40 large trucks were at the site weeks before. Was this attack just all for show, did they move everything?