• Existing user of old message board?

    Your username will have transferred over to this new message board, but your password will need to be reset. Visit our convert your account page, to transfer your old password over.

Israel v Iran

Spindle said:
Not really. Bunker busters can easily get though 50m earth with 10m conctrete. They wouldn't be putting anything under a hospital, it's not Gaza. They do have big mountains to burrow into though.
Click to expand...
My observation would be that it would be odd to undertake a risky military operation like this if there was no chance of achieving the primary aim.
 
Like watching Brighton play Millwall.

If ever there were 2 regimes you'd like to wipe each other out it's these 2.

Trouble is all those pesky, innocent collaterals who get zapped in the crossfire.
 
Spindle said:
Not really. Bunker busters can easily get though 50m earth with 10m conctrete. They wouldn't be putting anything under a hospital, it's not Gaza. They do have big mountains to burrow into though.
Click to expand...

I put this claim into Grok:

'Bunker busters like the GBU-57 MOP cannot easily penetrate 50 meters of earth followed by 10 meters of reinforced concrete. The earth layer alone pushes the limits of conventional bombs, and 10 meters of modern reinforced concrete (especially UHPC) is likely impenetrable by a single strike. Multiple precision strikes or nuclear options could theoretically succeed, but these come with significant logistical, technical, and ethical challenges. For such a heavily fortified target, adversaries would likely rely on alternative strategies, like dispersal or layered defenses, to mitigate the threat.'

Then I asked it can these bunker busters get at Iran's under the mountain nuclear facilities given their rumoured construction.

  • Fordow: GBU-57 MOPs cannot reliably destroy Fordow’s deep underground chambers due to excessive rock depth (60–90 meters). Multiple strikes might disrupt operations but are unlikely to neutralize the facility.
  • Natanz: Natanz is more vulnerable, and GBU-57s could potentially reach key areas with one or two strikes, assuming standard concrete and moderate overburden. Success depends on overcoming layered defenses.
  • Feasibility: Any strike faces significant operational hurdles (air defenses, logistics, intelligence) and strategic risks (escalation, retaliation).
 
Israel's main aim is to cause the collapse of the regime, their last semi powerful opponent in the region....and have the new one be a puppet of the Americans similar to Syria (probably won't work). As their reputation can't get much worse internationally but having America protecting them they view this as the right time to attempt this.

They will expand the strikes and cause the collapse of the country if they can regardless of the diplomatic noise.

Personally I don't think this works long term simply based upon Machiavelli lessons....there will be significant regional instability with unknowns. They might overthrow the regime but what they get in its place will ultimately still hate them.....a case of meet the new boss, he's the same as the old boss.

Probably more a case of giving them another twenty years in Iranian terms by degrading the infrastructure so much.
 
Last edited:
The Ministry of intelligence in Tehran has just been hit.

They are going to flatten Iran until they squeal.

Lots of hot heads and neo cons will have boners over this but long term it's an extremely risky strategy.
 
Stirlingsays said:
I put this claim into Grok:

'Bunker busters like the GBU-57 MOP cannot easily penetrate 50 meters of earth followed by 10 meters of reinforced concrete. The earth layer alone pushes the limits of conventional bombs, and 10 meters of modern reinforced concrete (especially UHPC) is likely impenetrable by a single strike. Multiple precision strikes or nuclear options could theoretically succeed, but these come with significant logistical, technical, and ethical challenges. For such a heavily fortified target, adversaries would likely rely on alternative strategies, like dispersal or layered defenses, to mitigate the threat.'

Then I asked it can these bunker busters get at Iran's under the mountain nuclear facilities given their rumoured construction.

  • Fordow: GBU-57 MOPs cannot reliably destroy Fordow’s deep underground chambers due to excessive rock depth (60–90 meters). Multiple strikes might disrupt operations but are unlikely to neutralize the facility.
  • Natanz: Natanz is more vulnerable, and GBU-57s could potentially reach key areas with one or two strikes, assuming standard concrete and moderate overburden. Success depends on overcoming layered defenses.
  • Feasibility: Any strike faces significant operational hurdles (air defenses, logistics, intelligence) and strategic risks (escalation, retaliation).
Click to expand...
There are several ways to make things bomb proof. Have an armoured cap, then a void, then rock, then sand, then concrete, then a void etc. Bombs won't go through several different layers and won't usually even penetrate two layers with a void. Bombs will not go through rock, then water for example. It's quite common sense and not that hi tech at all when you think about it. There's also no reason why things can't be 100s of metres or even a mile or two underground either. Only nukes or an earthquake would do anything to that
I'm reminded how tallboys couldn't penetrate some of the second world war submarine pens. They had 5 m of reinforced concrete, a void and then five metres of reinforced concrete. Tallboys were massive, fast and probably quite equivalent to today's bunker busters. The MOAB on the Taliban in a cave system is the last equivalent I can think of. That was reported to have worked.
 
We might see who's God is more effective in warfare. Israel's God managed to smite a lot of Israel's enemies in the Old Testament. Although he smited a few Jew's for forgetting how to worship God.
The God of the New Testament was a good deal more peaceable, but the Jews don't believe the New Testament.
The Muslims have a very war faring God, who advocates the cutting off of enemies heads.

Not wishing to be a non-believer, but this is going to come down to military hardware. Iran catapulting donkeys into Israel, and Israel operating a scorched-earth policy in Iran.
 
Stirlingsays said:
There speaks someone who's never heard of the Samson Option.
Click to expand...
The "Samson Option" refers to Israel's nuclear deterrence strategy, which is based on the biblical story of Samson, who brought down the temple on himself and his enemies. This strategy implies that Israel would resort to massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a last resort against any existential threat or military invasion. The term symbolizes a willingness to inflict significant damage on adversaries, even at the cost of its own destruction.

I don't see the U.K having enough power and leadership to blow up a paddling pool.
 
Lanzo-Ad said:
The "Samson Option" refers to Israel's nuclear deterrence strategy, which is based on the biblical story of Samson, who brought down the temple on himself and his enemies. This strategy implies that Israel would resort to massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a last resort against any existential threat or military invasion. The term symbolizes a willingness to inflict significant damage on adversaries, even at the cost of its own destruction.

I don't see the U.K having enough power and leadership to blow up a paddling pool.
Click to expand...

That's the nicest ally interpretation.

It's also been interpreted as if Israel falls everybody gets it......blackmail....as in you have to ensure our survival.

Anyway, I'm not sure what it has to do with what the UK can do.
 
Starmer and Reeves, words fail me.

They are the British answer to Biden and Harris.

Defending Israel, they attacked Iran, not the other way round, it is Iran who have the right of self-defence.

Israel are terrorism itself, in WW2 they letter-bombed Churchill, while he was fighting Hitler!

How can people support what they have done.

Ye Gods.

👎
 
steeleye20 said:
Starmer and Reeves, words fail me.

They are the British answer to Biden and Harris.

Defending Israel, they attacked Iran, not the other way round, it is Iran who have the right of self-defence.

Israel are terrorism itself, in WW2 they letter-bombed Churchill, while he was fighting Hitler!

How can people support what they have done.

Ye Gods.

👎
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware, UK jets are just to protect international shipping and British interests. They haven't been striking Iran. Although there has been strikes on the Houthis for years. I can't remember how long. As posted before, in conjunction with the Saudis. Jordan and Saudi Arabia will be allies of Israel in this.
 
ASCPFC said:
There are several ways to make things bomb proof. Have an armoured cap, then a void, then rock, then sand, then concrete, then a void etc. Bombs won't go through several different layers and won't usually even penetrate two layers with a void. Bombs will not go through rock, then water for example. It's quite common sense and not that hi tech at all when you think about it. There's also no reason why things can't be 100s of metres or even a mile or two underground either. Only nukes or an earthquake would do anything to that
I'm reminded how tallboys couldn't penetrate some of the second world war submarine pens. They had 5 m of reinforced concrete, a void and then five metres of reinforced concrete. Tallboys were massive, fast and probably quite equivalent to today's bunker busters. The MOAB on the Taliban in a cave system is the last equivalent I can think of. That was reported to have worked.
Click to expand...


Tallboys could I thought, they just missed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top