Live data from Hacker News

U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

bbc.co.uk

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#661

This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction. Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases. This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing…

My hunch is Iran will bomb a US base, not causing any real damage, as a tough gesture and continue striking Israel.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#662
post #5

I wonder if the bunker buster was used. It has a somewhat indirect lineage to the ww2 grand slam designed by Barnes Wallis. Iran has massive earthquake risks. For reasons unassociated with nuclear bunkers they do a lot of research into (fibre, and other) strengthened cement construction. With obvious applications to their nuclear industry of course. Another unrelated point, a significant number of Iranian civil engin…

> I wonder if the bunker buster was used Most certainly was. It's underground (Fordow is ~60m?) so it's either that or nukes.

Whatever about bombing Iran with conventional weapons, being the first president since Truman to nuke another country would split Trumps support base, and also legitimize using nuclear weapons in regional conflicts which would be extremely bad news for Ukraine

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#663

The irony being that Iran must get nukes now. It is readily apparent they cannot defend themselves conventionally. Nukes are the ultimate deterrence. This wouldn’t be happening if they had a credible, survivable nuclear deterrence. QED this forces Iran to acquire nukes.

> The irony being that Iran must get nukes now. It is readily apparent they cannot defend themselves conventionally

If Iran is willing to use its nuclear weapons in response to this (limited, conventional air strikes), then that's a clear demonstration they aren't rational actors and can't be trusted with nuclear weapons.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#664

This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction. Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases. This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing…

>Meanwhile, new enemies will be made for the US as a young generation grows up living through this.

It's also breeding a generation of young Americans that consider Israel their enemy: https://time.com/6958957/growing-antisemitism-young-american...

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#665

Iran never had the deterrent North Korea had. And by being a theocracy they heavily skewed any threat calculus against themselves. What they were doing, inching towards nukes, was a horrible move. In their position, you either sprint covertly and not play at all. I suspect that after their nuclear program was discovered and set back they fell victim to the sunk cost fallacy and convinced themselves they could repurpo…

> Iran never had the deterrent North Korea had. I feel very conflicted about what's happening. On one side it is clear that no country should give up their WMD projects. You lack that deterrent you get attacked, as simple as that. Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked. > What happened today likely saved millions of Iranian lives. That's speculation. Since you name NK that's a cl…

> You lack that deterrent you get attacked, as simple as that. Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked.

Or had them, and then gave them up because they were under the impression that they would be protected if they did so; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_de...

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#666
post #23

I think Netanyahu belongs in prison, and Trump, the less said the better, but: couldn't have happened to a nicer unauthorized weapons-grade uranium enrichment facility dug into the side of a mountain hours outside of population centers. If you haven't already, I highly recommend reading up on the GBU-57 "bunker buster" bomb, because it is some Merrie Melodies Acme brand munitions. It's deliberately as heavy as they c…

I know 30,000 lbs is a lot, but I'm still surprised that terminal velocity is fast enough for it to penetrate concrete as deeply as they say it can.

The GBU-57 is dropped from a high-altitude B-2 Spirit bomber, which can fly at altitudes of up to 50,000 feet. This high drop altitude is crucial for the bomb to reach a very high terminal velocity. Some sources suggest it reaches supersonic speeds, potentially around Mach 1.29 (approximately 440 m/s).

Let's conservatively assume a terminal velocity (v) of 400 m/s (approximately 895 mph).

Calculating Kinetic Energy (KE):

The formula for kinetic energy is:

KE = 0.5 * m * v²

Plugging in our values:

KE = 0.5 * 13,600 kg * (400 m/s)²

KE = 0.5 * 13,600 kg * 160,000 m²/s²

KE ≈ 1.088 billion Joules

This is an enormous amount of energy that must be absorbed by the ground to stop the bomb.

---

Resistive Force of Soil (60m penetration estimation):

To simplify, we can use empirical formulas developed from extensive testing. One of the most well-known is Young's empirical formula, which provides a way to estimate penetration depth based on the projectile's characteristics and the soil's properties.

resistive force is as a pressure (force per unit area) acting on the front of the MOP. Let's call this the dynamic soil resistance. The total resistive force (F) would be this pressure multiplied by the cross-sectional area (A) of the bomb.

The cross-sectional area of the MOP (with a diameter of 0.8 m) is

A = π * (radius)² = π * (0.4 m)² ≈ 0.5 m²

---

Calculating Penetration Depth (d):

The work done (W) by the soil to stop the bomb is:

W = F * d

Setting the initial kinetic energy equal to the work done:

KE = F * d

Therefore, the penetration depth is:

d = KE / F

To achieve a 60-meter penetration, the average resistive force would have to be:

F = 1,088,000,000 J / 60 m

F ≈ 18,133,333 Newtons

This is equivalent to a force of over 4 million pounds. While this seems immense, it's plausible given the energies involved.

---

Now, we can calculate the resistive force:

Convert PSI to Pascals (Newtons per square meter):

15,000 psi(assuming) × 6,895 Pa/psi ≈ 103.4 Million Pascals (MPa)

Calculate the MOP's Cross-Sectional Area:

Diameter = 31.5 inches (0.8 meters)

Radius = 0.4 meters

Area (A) = π × (radius)² = π × (0.4 m)² ≈ 0.503 m²

Calculate the Total Resistive Force (F):

Force = Pressure × Area

F = 103,400,000 N/m² × 0.503 m²

F ≈ 52 Million Newtons

So we see that 18 Million Newtons is not enough and the bomb would have to be significantly supersonic, or my calculations are too conservative, or they are overestimating the 60m soil penetration, but we ARE in the same ballpark.

---

now, you might ask how can an object achieve over 1 Mach terminal velocity?

At high altitudes (like 30,000-50,000 feet): The air is much colder and less dense. For instance, at 35,000 feet, the temperature can be around -54°C, and the speed of sound drops to about 295 m/s (about 660 mph).

In this high-altitude, low-density environment, the MOP's terminal velocity is incredibly high. It can easily accelerate past the local speed of sound (which is already lower due to the cold) and go supersonic, then slowing down when near ground.

The bomb is also likely designed like a super aerodynamic dart to achieve maximum terminal velocity.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#667

The only way out of this in the long term is via negotiations. The US and Israel were lucky that Iran built their Fordow plant only 50 meters underground. What will the US do when Iran rebuilds it far deeper? They have a coal mine going 1200 meters deep. Iran is technologically far more capable than North Korea, which ultimately succeeded in building the bomb. The US knows this and wouldn't have started this war if I…

There is another way out that may be more likely than negotiations; Iran will now obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran has had the capability to build one for as long as Netanyahu has been singing about it(20+ years). Now they have the motivation also.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#668
post #611

This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction. Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases. This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing…

I could be wrong in the end, but my read is that there really isn't the appetite anywhere near the levels during post 9/11 or cold war to enter a war. Not in the US, and likely not in Iran either. Its hard to think of a full scale war that was started by the U.S. that didn't have popular approval at the time it was launched.

> Its hard to think of a full scale war that was started by the U.S. that didn't have popular approval at the time it was launched.

There's not been a President like the current incumbent.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#669

This is not the end. This is the beginning of another Iraq war, set up exactly the same way: claiming, with dubious proof, an imminent risk from weapons of mass destruction. Iran’s options here are to bomb US bases, which are a lot closer by, mine the Strait of Hormuz, blow up oil infrastructure in nearby countries who are harboring US bases. This might risk Iran a much larger war but the alternative of doing nothing…

What I'm missing is that as one by one middle eastern countries are stomped to the curb, finding a balance between the countries gets harder. The more functional countries there are, the more room for negotiation, realignment, factions, and thus stability. We should want a muddy mess of interlinked allies. If after Egypt, Lybia, Syria, Iraq now Iran gets stomped, it's easier for the remaining powers to swing hard left out right instead of to continue muddying forward.

Re: U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

#670
post #189

OK what was done was done. What should we expect the political fallout in Iran?

There isn't going to be political fallout. The Iranian regime has systemically wiped out all dissent over the last decade and a half. The remaining population is all either pro-Khamenei or too powerless to speak out. If anything an unprovoked war will give the country stronger reason to distrust the west and rally behind their leader.

What about the factions within the regime? Maybe someone is going to take responsibility for all these failures?
Post reply on HN