• 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

Trump says this at the recent NATO conference regarding the attack on Iranian facilities:

“The intelligence was very inconclusive,” Trump told journalists at a Nato summit in The Hague, introducing an element of uncertainty for the first time after several days of emphatic declarations that the destruction had been total.

“The intelligence says we don’t know. It could’ve been very severe. That’s what the intelligence suggests.”
 
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...
Because anytime any information comes out where the administration cannot control the narrative the way they would like, they blame the ones who are disseminating the information.
 
teekay99 said:
Because anytime any information comes out where the administration cannot control the narrative the way they would like, they blame the ones who are disseminating the information.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Because it a classified report that was leaked. People are almost certainly going to jail over this. In fact it’s the only crime in the United States not necessarily involving a homicide that carries the death penalty. (No one is getting executed, probably not even 20 years. I’m simply referring to Treason)
 
Torch said:
Wrong. Because it a classified report that was leaked. People are almost certainly going to jail over this. In fact it’s the only crime in the United States not necessarily involving a homicide that carries the death penalty. (No one is getting executed, probably not even 20 years. I’m simply referring to Treason)
Click to expand...
2 things can be right at the same time....
 
Torch said:
True. I was over reacting. My apologies.
Click to expand...
No need all good. TBH, I did not identify a specific administration because I think most admins have attacked the media for any reason, whether it's a D or an R in office. Also, deep down inside, I think I like your explanation better. It's less cynical than mine.
 
teekay99 said:
No need all good. TBH, I did not identify a specific administration because I think most admins have attacked the media for any reason, whether it's a D or an R in office. Also, deep down inside, I think I like your explanation better. It's less cynical than mine.
Click to expand...
Haha, doesn’t mean you aren’t right.
 
Torch said:
In fact it’s the only crime in the United States not necessarily involving a homicide that carries the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Leaking a report is not a death penalty offense. Treason is a death penalty offense. Whether this rises to treason is up for debate.
 
7gtz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Some in the admin have labeled fake others haven’t. And my point is just because it is a product of a particular agency in the DOD. Does not mean it is accepted as the most valid assessment. If the administration is discrediting it. It is because they, for whatever reason, concluded it’s not as accurate as other assessments.

There would be BDA from the national reconnoissance office, the CIA, the Air Force and likely others. My understanding the DIA is not the go to agency for Bomb Damaged Assessment.
So sure it’s real, is it the most accurate assessment available, who knows.

Trumps speech at NATO is likely the most accurate. We’ve reviewed to to be severe. But it is honestly very hard to know conclusively
 
  • Love
Reactions: Torch
OReid said:
Trumps speech at NATO is likely the most accurate. We’ve reviewed to to be severe. But it is honestly very hard to know conclusively
Click to expand...
This is likely the most honest assessment. Unless you have someone on the ground looking things over, you're not going to know. A satellite can't tell you what's underground.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
This is likely the most honest assessment. Unless you have someone on the ground looking things over, you're not going to know. A satellite can't tell you what's underground.
Click to expand...
I agree I think it’s likely the strike did quite a bit of damage, but total destruction of Fordow, who can say.
The cumulative damage to the Iranian nuclear program and military I think it is safe to say been very costly to Iran.

Iran did get in some solid hits with some of their ballistic missiles, that cannot be dismissed. But the Israel’s ability to counter it while not perfect. Prevented Iran from creating any kind of a tactical or strategic victory. Did very little In the way of defeating Israel’s ability to continue to launch counter strikes and defensive measures.
 
Then there is this;

The propaganda media has deployed their usual tactic: selectively release portions of illegally leaked classified intelligence assessments (intentionally leaving out the fact that the assessment was written with "low confidence"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1937934899710710170

Let’s remember DNI Gabbard had been very much a non-interventionist except when there are significant threats to the US
 
OReid said:
Then there is this;

The propaganda media has deployed their usual tactic: selectively release portions of illegally leaked classified intelligence assessments (intentionally leaving out the fact that the assessment was written with "low confidence"

https://twitter.com/x/status/1937934899710710170

Let’s remember DNI Gabbard had been very much a non-interventionist except when there are significant threats to the US
Click to expand...
Didn’t DNI Gabbard say Iran wasn’t close to nuclear weapons at all? Only to have Trump call her wrong to her face? It’s all really inconsistent at times.
 
7gtz said:
Didn’t DNI Gabbard say Iran wasn’t close to nuclear weapons at all? Only to have Trump call her wrong to her face? It’s all really inconsistent at times.
Click to expand...
Confusing yes, but not inconsistent with the overall policy of stopping Iran from completing a nuclear weapon.
Her assessment was yes they were not currently trying to complete one.
But they had already stockpiled HEU.
Since that testimony before Congress Iran refused all attempts at negotiations. So the situation had changed.
Why Trump responded the way he did who knows. But since that quote she has spoken twice confirming that thry were in agreement.
 
7gtz said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1938018843080753364
Click to expand...

Who are you gonna believe this crap or you lying eyes?. 12 bombs, six holes.
I have witnessed routine differential error less than the width of the antenna.
(~3”). Sub meter is absolutely a repeatable standard, not a goal. The USAF does not use the same crap your phone or even a surveyor. “The last 10% of performance is 90% of the cost” is absolutely a fact. The unclassified standard is absolutely a totally, easily, repeatable event.

Now on the the other big miss by these amateur engineers. The bombs do not need to penetrate physically. Perhaps in loam or silt but in hard stone the energy wave propagates onward, (in this case, downward.

Spalling is a thing. The wave will emerge and crack and crush everything. Grinders and supports will be warped and crushed. Dynamic divergence, or resonance or conservation of momentum. It’s a thing kids. Maybe take a summer class at the Community College? Or pick up a high school physicist book (for a private school) Look at the poor technicians stuck down there. They’re all gonna look like they’re sleeping. Yet nearly every bone in their body will be crushed and cracked, and their skin will only be acting as a giant soup carton. All the equipment that isn’t crushed will still be destroyed. God have mercy upon them if the centrifuges were running.

This entire topic is being pushed on places like X (not here, not anyone here) who have a subject mastery depth of a parking lot puddle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom