Whatever makes anyone think that Trump makes any of the decisions he announces?
(Clue; he doesn’t tell anyone what he’s going to do. That’s because he only gets his instructions from time to time.)
Watched the Trump/Starmer paper-drop show and thought of this, go on, enjoy:
Thing is, Powell was a professional . . .
Nima with AK - well worth the time IMO
Interesting post on MoA concerning effort required for bunker busting.
“The 30-ton GBU-57A/B MOP is capable of penetrating hundreds of meters of fortified underground facilities.”
Total Bullshit.
It couldn’t even penetrate one hundred meters of water.
Some info on bunker busters.
The BLU-109 is roughly 900kg and like the GBU-57, is a penetration weapon. It can break through around 1.2m to 1.8m of reinforced concrete, and packs about 240kg of explosives.
The GBU-28 is a laser-guided weapon, weighing nearly 2,300kg. It can penetrate up to 6m of concrete.
The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb is about 9m long and weighs around 9,800kg. As its name indicates it explodes above ground, i.e., it penetrates 0m of concrete. It can do significant damage to bunkers that are not that deeply buried.
The GBU-43/B was referred to as the “mother of all bombs”, and was supposedly used against Islamic State militants in Afghanistan in 2017.
The GBU-57 is about 6.2m-long and weighs approximately 13,600kg.
How deep can the GBU-57 penetrate?
Before a GBU-28 can penetrate 6 meters it has to move the concrete in front of it out of the way.
This concrete is pulverized and blown upwards into the air.
This requires expelling a 6 meter deep conical shaped mass of concrete.
If you want to penetrate 12 meters you have to expel a 12 meter conical shaped mass of concrete.
This 12 meter conical volume has 8 times the mass of the 6m cone.
Therefore you need 8 times the energy to move it.
So your projectile needs to be eight times as heavy, i.e., 8 x 2,300 = 18,400 kg
To penetrate 24 meters the projectile needs to be 64 times as heavy as the GBU-28, i.e., 64 x 2,300 = 147,200 kg
Posted by: bunkered | Jun 20 2025 21:22 utc
Thanks for that @LocalYokel
Col. Douglas McGregor has noted that opinion is divided among US experts as to whether the biggest bunker-busting bomb would succeed.
It struck me that many of those advocating for the use of this weapon are those who wanted to bomb Iran in the first place, and who would happily cheer on any US bombing ‘campaign’ there.
When you remove these people who can hardly be considred objective, the expert opinion is likely heavily against this being likely to be successful.
McGregor also said at least 100 planes would need to be involved in the project.
If the prospects for success are as you say a numbers game there would need to be many of these bombs dropped to reach the target area and then inflict irreparable damage on the facility.
I doubt those advocating for this policy in the public arena have had it explained to them exactly what it entails in terms of weight of munitions, bombing intensity and military support. They want the public to think ‘yes, a big enough bomb…’ rather than the massive destruction that will ensue and the international fallout, as well as the limited prospects for success; also the certain danger to the people of Iran and surrounding countries from the inevitable release of radioactive material.
It’s also a distraction from the other awkward questions, like what evidence is there for nuclear weapons development in the first place (none) and is it legal to bomb it (no) and is it in any way moral (a question that is studiously avoided by all the gung-ho advocates, and which has an obvious answer)