OK, after reporting this out, I've got a few final thoughts on the B-2 strike on Fordo and whether the MOPs got through.
I think there's some really interesting details that have emerged and clarified my thinking... 
Conversation
![David Watson ๐ฅ](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="96" height="96"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
Post your reply
First, a question I must ask myself (and that you should ask too) is have I become "man on the Internet" who thinks he knows more than the Pentagon....
I am somewhat fearful that doing my own math makes it look like I do, but I assure you I do not.
Quote
Geoff Brumfiel
@gbrumfiel
Replying to @gbrumfiel
AND MATH!
Plug it all in, with the coefficient for "Medium-strength rock" and you get a penetration depth of 7.9 m (25 ft).
That is WELL short of the 60 m claimed and the 80-90m depth of Fordow.
The Pentagon knows way more than I do. About the rock, about the bomb, about the right equations and the bunkers.
And from everything we can see, I think seems that they executed this strike flawlessly. The hits are clustered. The strike points chosen carefully. ( /NPR)
POTUS asked to do this strike, and it looks like they executed the plan to a T. That's what the military is supposed to do.
But that doesn't mean the math I did was incorrect. As a back-of-the-envelop calculation, it probably is accurate to at least an order of magnitude....
GIF
What really drew me into this was the narrative that the bomb could go 60m underground every time, and that it WOULD destroy Fordo.
It is my job to question those kinds of assumptions.
(Oh wait, so maybe I am just professional "man on the Internet." Nevermind.)
ANYWAY, a few more interesting details have slipped out since that first that I'll now share:
First, today President Trump said that the U.S. believed Fordo is covered with "granite, concrete, and steel."
Granite is pretty hard, making penetration even more difficult.
that I'll now share:
First, today President Trump said that the U.S. believed Fordo is covered with "granite, concrete, and steel."
Granite is pretty hard, making penetration even more difficult.2nd-I had a great conversation with Raymond Jeanloz, who was part of the 2005 NAS study on earth-penetrating weapons.
He pointed out that natural fractures and voids in the rock can also easily deflect and disperse shock waves (and even the bomb itself as it hits the rock).
GIF
3rd, a little detail that I think is telling:
mentioned to me that when the Iranians built their underground hall at Natanz, they covered it in alternating layers of concrete and soil.
Jeanloz says is EXACTLY the way to create voids to deflect shockwaves.
... The Iranians also sealed the tunnels at Fordo and Esfahan with soil just days before the American strikes.
All this makes the point that they had a plan too. They had thought about bunker busters and were prepared.
And this brings me to my final thought. When Jeanloz and the National Academies looked at this problem and 2005, they came to a fairly simple conclusion:
"It's cheaper and easier to dig deeper than it is for someone to penetrate to that depth."
Was Fordo destroyed? I don't know. I'm not sure anyone knows right now (maybe not even the Iranians).
But it's clear to me is that there are some serious technical challenges to trying to hit it from the air.
TIME WILL TELL IF IT WORKED! How's that for a journalistic end?
GIF
Fantastic thread! Iโve done some basic math on the other side of this - cost and risk.
To my eye this operation cost approx $1.5B and upwards of $2B. I would argue they spent twice as much as necessary. There was no need for the deception flights heading west, which doubled the
Quote
Open Source Intel
@Osint613
Axios: Israeli intelligence believes the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes caused โvery significantโ damage to Iranโs nuclear infrastructure. Officials are reportedly baffled by a leaked American assessment that minimizes the operationโs impact.
Solar lets you keep your home powered and comfortable, with less reliance on the grid. Choose Sunrun solar to make your smart home even smarter.
![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="800" height="800"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
The width and shape of the ventilation shafts is probably the most important factor in determining how far down the bombs were able to reach.
Ok โnprโ
Quote
Green Beret Nap Time
@GBNT1952
We launched 420,000 pounds of high precision bunker busters at Iranian nuclear sites and another 30,000 pounds of Tomahawks.
If you think that amount of sheer explosive force did not destroy or render useless every piece of equipment at those sites, Iโm not sure what to tell
Show more
Quote
Fabian Hinz
@fab_hinz
One interesting fact about the MOP: The US appears to have tested it against a real underground facility just 30 kilometers south of the site of the worldโs first nuclear weapons test. Thread from a recent OSINT side quest. 1/10
Perhaps the models used to plan the mission and conduct analysis post mission has the ability to do vary key parameters, like "toughness" .
Unless they illegally used a tactical nuke they did not get through. Trump however seems to be convinced they did. He could be lying of course but he did seem sincere. I just don't think 30,000 pounds of explosives is enough to get through
Yes, it's crystal clear, certainly anyone that studied Geotechnical Tests for Foundation Engineering clearly understands that there simply can't be an object with a single penetration rate identical for any type of ground.
According to certain reporting**, the US first tested the MOP on a mock facility made to similar characteristics. They could have failed to take everything into account! Or the reporting could be wrong. But it explains why they thought it would work.
**
Quote
ืชืืืจ ืืืจื Tamir Morag
@Tamir114
Replying to @Tamir114
Letโs try to clarify, as much as possible given the limits of missing information, the question: How badly was Iranโs nuclear program damaged?
First of all, contrary to some statements I've heard, the program was not "set back by decades." The reason is that this is simply
Show more
Post bombing fire coming out of the holes should have been indicative for effectiveness. If Uranium was burning it would be discernable by Mass Spectrography. This tells you exactly how deep it was penetrated and what burned.
Volatility indices, such as CME Group's CVOL, are important measures of market sentiment. But what does the metric called convexity tell us about market uncertainty? spr.ly/60114rwjL
Just a small point , earthquake bombs do exactly what they say , the facility will be gone 6 went down the ventilation shaft , there will be a collapsed cavern full of rock gravel mixed with the remains of the plant , buried under a few more collapsed camouflet
Estos lรญmites muestran cรณmo la protecciรณn subterrรกnea sigue ganando. Fascina ver hasta dรณnde puede llegar la ingenierรญa militar. 
Siempre hay un nuevo reto por delante.
Siempre hay un nuevo reto por delante.
Keep in mind we launched a bunch of tomahawks before the strikes even began. Then 6 or so bunker busters.
Great article, very interesting. It still begs the question why Trump would declare it an 'obliteration' when all the weapons experts,the math,physics&geology entailed say otherwise?
Lie to make yourself look good? That's Trump's modus operandi.
By your own assessments (โdigging is cheaper and easier than penetratingโ) doesnโt this mean it would be easier/cheaper/faster/less conspicuous for the Iranians to build a new facility rather than trying to excavate and repair Fordo or Isfahan?
Solar lets you keep your home powered and comfortable, with less reliance on the grid. Choose Sunrun solar to make your smart home even smarter.