• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

New analysis shows U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites caused less damage than expected

Hence my lack of excitement due to patience for results. Some see massive explosions and convince themselves it had to be. The distance between strikes told me maybe it wasn't as effective as some thought.
As well as concern on depth of and material- rock to destroy before reaching concrete of which we didn't know its psi either. Proves tech and power isn't a given. Regardless of outcome trying to destroy the facilities the question remains with 9 days of such action expected , how much equipment they moved and where is the enriched uranium? Mission success claim once again pre-mature.
 
Yingyang said:
how much equipment they moved and where is the enriched uranium? Mission success claim once again pre-mature.
Click to expand...
No where near enough, yet.

The stockpiles of HEU was not our mission. you need to go to an Israeli site for that.

Our <mission> (USA) was to drop rock on people’s heads and slowly asphyxiate anyone who wasn’t crushed. Of course lab fires would be welcome and the more radio-actives spread around the better.

Kill people, break things, go home. Perfect.

(Sounds harsh to you? It is. It also the mission. For professionals it is a calling. No different than the clergy, artisans or profession athletes. You win some, you lose some. Hopefully more wins measured by mission success rather than a politicians or a governments fickle stance)
 
Last edited:
So how is this assessment being made?

What are the measures of effectiveness and performance?

My understanding was the primary objective was to destroy the hardened Fordow enrichment facility so it cold no longer be used. 12 GBU-57s sending concrete out the penetration holes seems to have done the job of neutralizing that facility for use.

However, because of this ambiguity and POTUS' hesitation, I thought the Israeli's were going to do a ground strike mission with SOF. I was wrong.
 
Last edited:
For the first time in my life, I'm going to defend Donald Trump.
It's likely that the US didn't have Russia and China's agreement to destroy Iran's nuclear potential. The attack on Iran was measured, and the military had orders to destroy only the power plant's entrances and exits. I think it's likely that Russia and China would have declared war on the US. The military did a good job; they followed orders. Trump doesn't want to be the one to start World War III, and I understand that. As I write this, we'd probably all be dead! Thanks, Donald!
 
GBS61 said:
and the military had orders to destroy only the power plant's entrances and exits.
Click to expand...
Rather pointless then. Rocks can be removed and access restored.

GBS61 said:
It's likely that the US didn't have Russia and China's agreement to destroy Iran's nuclear potential.
Click to expand...
I really doubt Russia and China were consulted on what kind of damage the US was going to inflict.
 
I will withhold judgment on effectiveness till latter. One can be predisposed one way or the other for a variety of reasons.
Destruction of the two entrances if that is all that happened is still significant.
Also the reporting coming out again “anonymously” says it was not as successful as could be, based upon what expectations?

If it’s based upon the John Bolton metric then anything short of a nuclear strike would be unsuccessful.
Or the John Kerry “you can bomb the knowledge of how to away”.
Then we might as well go back to appeasing Iran and finding more money to free up to prop up their government
 
OReid said:
If it’s based upon the John Bolton metric then anything short of a nuclear strike would be unsuccessful.
Or the John Kerry “you can bomb the knowledge of how to away”.
Then we might as well go back to appeasing Iran and finding more money to free up to prop up their government
Click to expand...
Obama Style: Fraking Pallets of cash.

At least the 12 Penetrators cost less then a couple of C-5 filled with linen.

The Hits were not at the entrances on the Maps and photos I saw. Regardless, the damage inside those complexes would have been catastrophic. (I always secretly feared being inside rather than out if an attack came.)

Since this is the first attack on a modern purpose built harden bunker complex since WW2, the results are going to vary from expectations. I can say we turned 20 years of work into years and years of recovery before any construction continues.

The IAF also attacked the site after the US according to news reports.

I’m simply certain that any conclusions that 54,000+ pounds of explosives in a confined area did little damage are wrong. I would suggest there is no basis for that opinion and it is only spoken by fools or drones and not worth further rebuttal's.

Edited for atrocious spelling and punctuation. It probably still wants for grammatical abuse.
 
Last edited:
DEFCON Warning System said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1937646600198979914
Click to expand...
If you read the article of the assumed report I have an issue with one of its assertions.
The centrifuges were left largely undamaged. Centrifuges like this are not robust pieces of equipment. And they just had several tons of explosive ordnance dropped on top of them.
This is something that cannot be known and is unsupported assumption.

www.foxnews.com

Experts gauge success of 'bunker buster' bombs dropped by US on Iran nuclear sites

Experts tell Fox News Digital the strikes created a significant disruption to Iran's nuclear program, even as the damage has yet to be fully assessed.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
OReid said:
The centrifuges were left largely undamaged. Centrifuges like this are not robust pieces of equipment. And they just had several tons of explosive ordnance dropped on top of them.


www.foxnews.com

Experts gauge success of 'bunker buster' bombs dropped by US on Iran nuclear sites

Experts tell Fox News Digital the strikes created a significant disruption to Iran's nuclear program, even as the damage has yet to be fully assessed.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
If they were operating they were toast.

We (wife and I) once had a centrifuge just for test tubes fall off the counter. There were glass shards (not many) in the ceiling tiles. My wife (Scientist) and I ( a Klutz) were left standing there like the Tasty Burger scene in “Pulp Fiction”.
Ok maybe since that’s already in the conversation; I, being closer because I knocked it over (who knew they could walk? I’m an engineer not a lab rat. “Be careful! I left a gyro powered up before I stupidly called you in!” I would have understood)…anyway I was closer and ended up looking like Vincent and Jules in ‘The car scene’.

I have completely lost whatever train of thought at this point. Sorry?
 
Last edited:
Torch said:
No where near enough, yet.

The stockpiles of HEU was not our mission. you need to go to an Israeli site for that.

Our (USA) was to drop rock on people’s heads and slowly asphyxiate anyone who wasn’t crushed. Of course lab fires would be welcome and the more radio-actives spread around the better.

Kill people, break things, go home. Perfect.

(Sounds harsh to you? It is. It also the mission. For professionals it is a calling. No different than the clergy, artisans or profession athletes. You win some, you lose some. Hopefully more wins measured by mission success rather than a politicians or a governments fickle stance)
Click to expand...
Nothing i said was incorrect. Not sure what or how your reply applies .
 
Torch said:
Kill people, break things, go home. Perfect.

(Sounds harsh to you? It is. It also the mission. For professionals it is a calling. No different than the clergy, artisans or profession athletes. You win some, you lose some. Hopefully more wins measured by mission success rather than a politicians or a governments fickle stance)
Click to expand...
Militarymen concern themselves with breaking things when ordered to do so. That is indeed their mission. And it falls to politicians who order such missions to determine whether it actually makes sense to break the said things. Otherwise you end up with a tactical success and a strategic failure. And the US is nothing if not a repeat offender in this context.

Nobody's questioning the fact that BIG BOMBS were dropped and there was a lot of KABOOM. As for how this fits in with the US national security strategy - my answer would be: "The US does not currently have a national security strategy."
 
Socom7 said:
it falls to politicians who order such missions to determine whether it actually makes sense to break the said things. Otherwise you end up with a tactical success and a strategic failure. And the US is nothing if not a repeat offender in this context.


I agree with you. Our strongest trait, near constantly changing representation is also one of our greatest weakness.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Socom7 said:
Nobody's questioning the fact that BIG BOMBS were dropped and there was a lot of KABOOM.
Click to expand...

BTW Military Officers do not use silly terms such as “Kaboom”. Speaking for myself and colleagues, all of whom have at least a genius level IQ and most are Aerospace Engineers. at least for their first degree, we prefer the somewhat more technical term “Kabluey” although I myself have used “Ka-pow” during debriefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom