• 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

Torch said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are yes I remember ka-pow etc 🤣😂🤣 old school BATMAN TV series 🤣😂🤣
 
Torch said:
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.
Click to expand...
In my doctoral thesis, I used the phrase "Blamo!"
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
The fact that the White House is so freaked out over the leak lends credence to its validity.
Click to expand...
Not IMO. CNN and the NYT knew that the only way to verify the BDA was with boots on the ground and saw a chance to "Get Trump" because that was not going to happen without the White House revealing a clandestine operation by the US or Israel and of course if the WH did they would be running on a loop how the WH was giving away national secrets and should be impeached. Same goes for the overhead imagery. It worked because President Trump was pissed. I don't think so much for himself but for all the men and women involved in the operation.

The claim that the bunker was not destroyed I call BS. Think about it, the US dropped 12 of the biggest conventual bombs that are designed to penetrate concrete and rock in two different entry points. That's 6 each and even with the imagery commercially available you can see there were not 6 different entry holes per site. The bombs did what they were designed to do.

Just look at the damage caused to buildings on the ground by just one bomb or missile. I know you can't really compare a buried bunker to surface structures but come on 12 MOPs were dropped on that mountain.

Ever traveled on the interstate and saw where rock was blasted out to make way for the road. The explosive used to do that was a tiny fraction of what was dropped on that mountain.
 
william said:
The claim that the bunker was not destroyed I call BS. Think about it, the US dropped 12 of the biggest conventual bombs that are designed to penetrate concrete and rock in two different entry points.
Click to expand...
That kind of depends where the actual facility was. Near the entrance, yes. Destroyed. Further back (where I would have built it), maybe not.
 
Socom7 said:
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."
Click to expand...
I disagree with this statement.

Donald Trump’s 2025 National Security Plans:​

www.econotimes.com

Donald Trump’s Bold 2025 National Security Plans: ‘Unprecedented Measures’ or a Controversial Gamble?” Sparks Heated Debate - EconoTimes

Former President Donald Trump has unveiled his national security agenda for 2025, presenting a sweeping framework aimed at addressing evolving global threats and restoring U.S. dominance in international affairs. The plan...
www.econotimes.com www.econotimes.com

Click to expand...
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
That kind of depends where the actual facility was. Near the entrance, yes. Destroyed. Further back (where I would have built it), maybe not.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure they knew the exact layout of that facility and so knew just where to strike to do the most damage. That's why there were two strike points and not just one. IMO
 
william said:
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure they knew the exact layout of that facility and so knew just where to strike to do the most damage. That's why there were two strike points and not just one. IMO
Click to expand...
How would they know that? A spy maybe?
 
7gtz said:

apnews.com

Early US intelligence report suggests US strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by months

A new U.S. intelligence report suggests that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back only a few months after U.S. strikes, not “completely and totally obliterated” as President Donald Trump has said.
apnews.com apnews.com

abcnews.go.com

Early US intel assessment finds Trump-ordered strikes set back Iran's nuclear program only by months

It's at odds with President Trump's claim it was "obliterated."
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

www.nytimes.com

Strike Set Back Iran’s Nuclear Program by Only a Few Months, U.S. Report Says

Preliminary classified findings indicate that the attack sealed off the entrances to two facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
I’m quite sure this DIA damage assessment exist, thus the investigation into its leaking.

Is it an assessment that has much credibility to it? What are its metrics for success.
Did it just collapse entrances?
Did it damage equipment inside, is this equipment easily replaceable?
Did it resort in the death of workers?

Is everyone just assuming that this is the only DOD or IC assessment worked up from the many different departments inside this community? And is it amongst the differing dept considered most credible.


Everyone is saying it can all be rebuilt and Irans program is not destroyed.
Well was this not always true.
Although the deaths of so many Iranian scientists is probably as damaging as anything.

Does this unseen report from an anonymous individual actually say “only set back months”. Or is this only the anonymous individuals personal assessment the is program is only set back months.

We all accept politicians are prone to hyperbole. And we have seen journalist make unsupported claims about unseen reports and dossiers.

So did the gbu-57’s reach the facility and detonate properly upon entering the chamber buried in the mountain? Or did the multiple impacts decimate the
Two entrances to Fordow so badly it
Would take months or more to repair? Did the impact create a seismic wave sufficient to damage much if not all of the precision equipment inside.

You know what we likely won’t know for sure for at least a year or two.

What it know is Irans nuclear program has been severely damaged in both Infrastructure and Human Resources and set back years at a minimum. Even if they dig Fordow out.

That is unless Iran has had nukes all along. Which if the bombardment of last 12 days didn’t instigate the Ayatollah’s to use one I’m not sure what the conditions are for it.

A lot of this reporting and posturing over the impact of the B-2 strike has very little to do with its impact on Irans nuclear program and much more to do with the administration’s decision to do it and it’s political impact.
“Yes we will act when needed”
or
“The administrations actions where illegal and ineffective”
 
Can anyone explain why the Trump administration is attacking media and the news for reporting on the assessment when it’s pretty much established by now that the report wasn’t fake?
 
7gtz said:
Can anyone explain why the Trump administration is attacking media and the news for reporting on the assessment when it’s pretty much established by now that the report wasn’t fake?
Click to expand...
They are mad about the leakers. Keep in mind that there have been quite a few leaks so far in his presidency, and the media has been more than willing to publish information that would normally put them behind bars. IMO they shouldn't have released this story and have lowered their credibility rating even more into the depths of hell.
 
7gtz said:
Can anyone explain why the Trump administration is attacking media and the news for reporting on the assessment when it’s pretty much established by now that the report wasn’t fake?
Click to expand...
Oh! You don't know the American nation! In the USA, the truth isn't important, it's the land of freedom par excellence. People are so free that they can believe whatever they want, and even the president can lie as he wants! For twenty years, this country has fallen into lies. But, they are free!
 
Peter Griffin said:
They are mad about the leakers. Keep in mind that there have been quite a few leaks so far in his presidency, and the media has been more than willing to publish information that would normally put them behind bars. IMO they shouldn't have released this story and have lowered their credibility rating even more into the depths of hell.
Click to expand...
It is the duty of the media to release things like this. Freedom of the press is so that the press can hold the government accountable for lies such as “the operation went perfect destroying their program” when simple logic says they know we have bunker busters and designed their facilities knowing that.

The media did what the media is supposed to do - report potentially relevant information even if it makes the government look bad.

Even if this report isn’t guaranteed, covering leaks isn’t destroying credibility any more than a new station reporting Joe Biden said the sky is green. It might not be true but that’s what the leak said.
 
intel-bank said:
It is the duty of the media to release things like this. Freedom of the press is so that the press can hold the government accountable for lies such as “the operation went perfect destroying their program” when simple logic says they know we have bunker busters and designed their facilities knowing that.

The media did what the media is supposed to do - report potentially relevant information even if it makes the government look bad.

Even if this report isn’t guaranteed, covering leaks isn’t destroying credibility any more than a new station reporting Joe Biden said the sky is green. It might not be true but that’s what the leak said.
Click to expand...
That’s true and it is also true that a journalist, news organization, and the individual leaking the doc can just as much have a political agenda in releasing this document.
It’s is pretty clear that there are members of the press bring a political or activist bias to their reporting. And yes this is absolutely true on both sides.

Again as far as the administration pushing back against the media for running it.
Well it was supposed to be top secret documents, so there is that. It is only one doc, I don’t believe the doc has been released yet. So why wouldn’t any administration push back.
 
No that isn’t my point. I don’t know where I stand on the media publishing this. My point is why is the administration attempting to discredit the report and call it fake when it’s clearly a real Pentagon assessment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom