What's new

An Iranian nuclear facility is so deep underground that US airstrikes likely couldn’t reach it

An Iranian nuclear facility is so deep underground that US airstrikes likely couldn’t reach it
By JON GAMBRELL May 22, 2023 GMT
https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-natanz-uranium-enrichment-underground-project-04dae673fc937af04e62b65dd78db2e0


DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Near a peak of the Zagros Mountains in central Iran, workers are building a nuclear facility so deep in the earth that it is likely beyond the range of a last-ditch U.S. weapon designed to destroy such sites, according to experts and satellite imagery analyzed by The Associated Press.

The photos and videos from Planet Labs PBC show Iran has been digging tunnels in the mountain near the Natanz nuclear site, which has come under repeated sabotage attacks amid Tehran’s standoff with the West over its atomic program.

With Iran now producing uranium close to weapons-grade levels after the collapse of its nuclear deal with world powers, the installation complicates the West’s efforts to halt Tehran from potentially developing an atomic bomb as diplomacy over its nuclear program remains stalled.

Completion of such a facility “would be a nightmare scenario that risks igniting a new escalatory spiral,” warned Kelsey Davenport, the director of nonproliferation policy at the Washington-based Arms Control Association. “Given how close Iran is to a bomb, it has very little room to ratchet up its program without tripping U.S. and Israeli red lines. So at this point, any further escalation increases the risk of conflict.”



The construction at the Natanz site comes five years after then-President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew America from the nuclear accord. Trump argued the deal did not address Tehran’s ballistic missile program, nor its support of militias across the wider Middle East.

But what it did do was strictly limit Iran’s enrichment of uranium to 3.67% purity, powerful enough only to power civilian power stations, and keep its stockpile to just some 300 kilograms (660 pounds).

Since the demise of the nuclear accord, Iran has said it is enriching uranium up to 60%, though inspectors recently discovered the country had produced uranium particles that were 83.7% pure. That is just a short step from reaching the 90% threshold of weapons-grade uranium.

As of February, international inspectors estimated Iran’s stockpile was over 10 times what it was under the Obama-era deal, with enough enriched uranium to allow Tehran to make “several” nuclear bombs, according to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

President Joe Biden and Israel’s prime minister have said they won’t allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon. “We believe diplomacy is the best way to achieve that goal, but the president has also been clear that we have not removed any option from the table,” the White House said in a statement to the AP.



The Islamic Republic denies it is seeking nuclear weapons, though officials in Tehran now openly discuss their ability to pursue one.

Iran’s mission to the United Nations, in response to questions from the AP regarding the construction, said that “Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities are transparent and under the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.” However, Iran has been limiting access for international inspectors for years.

Iran says the new construction will replace an above-ground centrifuge manufacturing center at Natanz struck by an explosion and fire in July 2020. Tehran blamed the incident on Israel, long suspected of running sabotage campaigns against its program.
https://defence.pk/video/iran-gover...press-israel-986492a548964754805b3ac439776698
Tehran has not acknowledged any other plans for the facility, though it would have to declare the site to the IAEA if they planned to introduce uranium into it. The Vienna-based IAEA did not respond to questions about the new underground facility.

The new project is being constructed next to Natanz, about 225 kilometers (140 miles) south of Tehran. Natanz has been a point of international concern since its existence became known two decades ago.

Protected by anti-aircraft batteries, fencing and Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, the facility sprawls across 2.7 square kilometers (1 square mile) in the country’s arid Central Plateau.



Satellite photos taken in April by Planet Labs PBC and analyzed by the AP show Iran burrowing into the Kūh-e Kolang Gaz Lā, or “Pickaxe Mountain,” which is just beyond Natanz’s southern fencing.

A different set of images analyzed by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies reveals that four entrances have been dug into the mountainside, two to the east and another two to the west. Each is 6 meters (20 feet) wide and 8 meters (26 feet) tall.

The scale of the work can be measured in large dirt mounds, two to the west and one to the east. Based on the size of the spoil piles and other satellite data, experts at the center told AP that Iran is likely building a facility at a depth of between 80 meters (260 feet) and 100 meters (328 feet). The center’s analysis, which it provided exclusively to AP, is the first to estimate the tunnel system’s depth based on satellite imagery.

The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based nonprofit long focused on Iran’s nuclear program, suggested last year the tunnels could go even deeper.

Experts say the size of the construction project indicates Iran likely would be able to use the underground facility to enrich uranium as well — not just to build centrifuges. Those tube-shaped centrifuges, arranged in large cascades of dozens of machines, rapidly spin uranium gas to enrich it. Additional cascades spinning would allow Iran to quickly enrich uranium under the mountain’s protection.



“So the depth of the facility is a concern because it would be much harder for us. It would be much harder to destroy using conventional weapons, such as like a typical bunker buster bomb,” said Steven De La Fuente, a research associate at the center who led the analysis of the tunnel work.

The new Natanz facility is likely to be even deeper underground than Iran’s Fordo facility, another enrichment site that was exposed in 2009 by U.S. and other world leaders. That facility sparked fears in the West that Iran was hardening its program from airstrikes.

Such underground facilities led the U.S. to create the GBU-57 bomb, which can plow through at least 60 meters (200 feet) of earth before detonating, according to the American military. U.S. officials reportedly have discussed using two such bombs in succession to ensure a site is destroyed. It is not clear that such a one-two punch would damage a facility as deep as the one at Natanz.

With such bombs potentially off the table, the U.S. and its allies are left with fewer options to target the site. If diplomacy fails, sabotage attacks may resume.

Already, Natanz has been targeted by the Stuxnet virus, believed to be an Israeli and American creation, which destroyed Iranian centrifuges. Israel also is believed to have killed scientists involved in the program, struck facilities with bomb-carrying drones and launched other attacks. Israel’s government declined to comment.

Experts say such disruptive actions may push Tehran even closer to the bomb — and put its program even deeper into the mountain where airstrikes, further sabotage and spies may not be able to reach it.

“Sabotage may roll back Iran’s nuclear program in the short-term, but it is not a viable, long-term strategy for guarding against a nuclear-armed Iran,” said Davenport, the nonproliferation expert. “Driving Iran’s nuclear program further underground increases the proliferation risk.”
 
.
KSA will immediately follow Iran and test a nuclear device.
With what imaginary uranium or plutonium and delivery mechanism and research on miniaturisation and blast yield and ... ?

Sometimes if you know nothing it is better not to speak, now everyone knows what a fool you are.

Yes Algeria and Saudi Arabia will suddenly develop nuclear weapons overnight despite having no nuclear facilities or any experience with the nuclear fuel cycle let alone producing a nuclear warhead :enjoy:
 
.
After the breaking of this news, I was fascinated by the mental gymnastic of the American media in their attempts to create scenarios where they would still be able to damage these facilities. In one of these scenarios (I kid you not) they were talking about sending commandos in to destroy these facilities.

The reality is this, short of a full on invasion, which is beyond the capability of the Americans, there is nothing the Americans can do to stop the Iranian nuclear program. They need to realise that it is a purely political decision which is the deciding factor whether Iran goes nuclear or not openly. Now, whether Iran actually has nukes or not already, that's a separate discussion.

As for this notion that KSA and the Turks would go nuclear after Iran. Thos countries would collapse within 24 hours if they were even sanctioned 1/100t of what Iran has been sanctioned. Moreover, the like of KSA and Turkey only have whatever technologies the west decide they can have.
 
.
After the breaking of this news, I was fascinated by the mental gymnastic of the American media in their attempts to create scenarios where they would still be able to damage these facilities. In one of these scenarios (I kid you not) they were talking about sending commandos in to destroy these facilities.

The reality is this, short of a full on invasion, which is beyond the capability of the Americans, there is nothing the Americans can do to stop the Iranian nuclear program. They need to realise that it is a purely political decision which is the deciding factor whether Iran goes nuclear or not openly. Now, whether Iran actually has nukes or not already, that's a separate discussion.

As for this notion that KSA and the Turks would go nuclear after Iran. Thos countries would collapse within 24 hours if they were even sanctioned 1/100t of what Iran has been sanctioned. Moreover, the like of KSA and Turkey only have whatever technologies the west decide they can have.

US has been out smarted by Iran, that s the conclusion here. From a strategic standpoint (like chess moves) Bush commited the major Error invading Irak. Americans are not aware of this,but will understand. I think that time Iran can be attacked... Iran would fight, but i would have doubts about the outcome in that time (2000), reality is weaponry is very important.

Now, i am sure US has an impossible task, they cannot force Iran in anything. The worst for americans this is not gonna stop here, Iran getting stronger by the day, and this is not gonna stop.
 
. . . .
Oh suddenly getting triggered eh?

Like to dish it out...but can't take it. Typical response!!

I shouldn't expect less from somebody who quits their country. You should be damn proud of yourself sitting there at your computer in Norway...posting pics of other people supposedly at their desk in their country. Good going!!
What did legal migration to other countries have to do with @Abid123 's discussion?

There happens migration from every corner of the world to Persian Gulf Arab countries mostly to find a good job and for higher income.

You are already derailing the thread,
 
.
pk.GIF

no.GIF
:coffee:


Hey at least I didn't feel the need to abandon my country for a better life...
Pathetic troll. Everyone who lives in the USA today (apart from native Americans) at one point abandoned their country for a better life in the USA, including you, GI Joe chump.
 
.
Pathetic troll. Everyone who lives in the USA today (apart from native Americans) at one point abandoned their country for a better life in the USA, including you, GI Joe chump.

Yes, they sure did when they realized their countries were not doing their job of making their citizens happy over 100 years ago...they left.

Looks like the same thing is happening in many Asian countries in the 21st Century.
 
Last edited:
.
Saudi is not increasing hostilities with Iran, now they are in some kind of reverse procees to improve ties, KSA is not stupid they know Iran is not gonna be attacked by Israel, Israel has lost a LOT of deterrence against Iran, KSA wouldn t bet in a loser horse, this would be stupid. Last news about Iran hypersonic test and when they show the missiles show Iran is there to rule, they the real power out there, seriously. People can think whatever,but for US Iran is the only one means business, Iran is the beef.

Algeria is not gonna be nuclear, never any time soon, maybe Egypt can be nuclear capable only if improves relation with Iran. Iran will help anyone who shows wants to be in the alliance, officials repeteadly said that. But Egypt authorities are weak today, they seems to have a marginal position in the region.

And Turkiye would be subjected to sanctions if they try to be nuclear capable. They will obey. We all know this.

Iran is the strongest, to me, of course.
Iran needed the old, discarded Pakistani centrifuges in order to reach the next level. They couldn't build their own.

Israel is a colonial outpost. Without the support from Europe/USA Israel cannot last, especially if Egypt gets its house in order.

Algeria has had exposure to nuclear reality since the French days.

KSA isn't stupid. No one in the region trusts Iran.
 
.
Iran needed the old, discarded Pakistani centrifuges in order to reach the next level. They couldn't build their own.

Israel is a colonial outpost. Without the support from Europe/USA Israel cannot last, especially if Egypt gets its house in order.

Algeria has had exposure to nuclear reality since the French days.

KSA isn't stupid. No one in the region trusts Iran.
We don't need trust of some American and israeli valets
 
.
An Iranian nuclear facility is so deep underground that US airstrikes likely couldn’t reach it
By JON GAMBRELL May 22, 2023 GMT
https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-natanz-uranium-enrichment-underground-project-04dae673fc937af04e62b65dd78db2e0


DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Near a peak of the Zagros Mountains in central Iran, workers are building a nuclear facility so deep in the earth that it is likely beyond the range of a last-ditch U.S. weapon designed to destroy such sites, according to experts and satellite imagery analyzed by The Associated Press.

The photos and videos from Planet Labs PBC show Iran has been digging tunnels in the mountain near the Natanz nuclear site, which has come under repeated sabotage attacks amid Tehran’s standoff with the West over its atomic program.

With Iran now producing uranium close to weapons-grade levels after the collapse of its nuclear deal with world powers, the installation complicates the West’s efforts to halt Tehran from potentially developing an atomic bomb as diplomacy over its nuclear program remains stalled.

Completion of such a facility “would be a nightmare scenario that risks igniting a new escalatory spiral,” warned Kelsey Davenport, the director of nonproliferation policy at the Washington-based Arms Control Association. “Given how close Iran is to a bomb, it has very little room to ratchet up its program without tripping U.S. and Israeli red lines. So at this point, any further escalation increases the risk of conflict.”



The construction at the Natanz site comes five years after then-President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew America from the nuclear accord. Trump argued the deal did not address Tehran’s ballistic missile program, nor its support of militias across the wider Middle East.

But what it did do was strictly limit Iran’s enrichment of uranium to 3.67% purity, powerful enough only to power civilian power stations, and keep its stockpile to just some 300 kilograms (660 pounds).

Since the demise of the nuclear accord, Iran has said it is enriching uranium up to 60%, though inspectors recently discovered the country had produced uranium particles that were 83.7% pure. That is just a short step from reaching the 90% threshold of weapons-grade uranium.

As of February, international inspectors estimated Iran’s stockpile was over 10 times what it was under the Obama-era deal, with enough enriched uranium to allow Tehran to make “several” nuclear bombs, according to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

President Joe Biden and Israel’s prime minister have said they won’t allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon. “We believe diplomacy is the best way to achieve that goal, but the president has also been clear that we have not removed any option from the table,” the White House said in a statement to the AP.



The Islamic Republic denies it is seeking nuclear weapons, though officials in Tehran now openly discuss their ability to pursue one.

Iran’s mission to the United Nations, in response to questions from the AP regarding the construction, said that “Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities are transparent and under the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.” However, Iran has been limiting access for international inspectors for years.

Iran says the new construction will replace an above-ground centrifuge manufacturing center at Natanz struck by an explosion and fire in July 2020. Tehran blamed the incident on Israel, long suspected of running sabotage campaigns against its program.
https://defence.pk/video/iran-gover...press-israel-986492a548964754805b3ac439776698
Tehran has not acknowledged any other plans for the facility, though it would have to declare the site to the IAEA if they planned to introduce uranium into it. The Vienna-based IAEA did not respond to questions about the new underground facility.

The new project is being constructed next to Natanz, about 225 kilometers (140 miles) south of Tehran. Natanz has been a point of international concern since its existence became known two decades ago.

Protected by anti-aircraft batteries, fencing and Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, the facility sprawls across 2.7 square kilometers (1 square mile) in the country’s arid Central Plateau.



Satellite photos taken in April by Planet Labs PBC and analyzed by the AP show Iran burrowing into the Kūh-e Kolang Gaz Lā, or “Pickaxe Mountain,” which is just beyond Natanz’s southern fencing.

A different set of images analyzed by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies reveals that four entrances have been dug into the mountainside, two to the east and another two to the west. Each is 6 meters (20 feet) wide and 8 meters (26 feet) tall.

The scale of the work can be measured in large dirt mounds, two to the west and one to the east. Based on the size of the spoil piles and other satellite data, experts at the center told AP that Iran is likely building a facility at a depth of between 80 meters (260 feet) and 100 meters (328 feet). The center’s analysis, which it provided exclusively to AP, is the first to estimate the tunnel system’s depth based on satellite imagery.

The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based nonprofit long focused on Iran’s nuclear program, suggested last year the tunnels could go even deeper.

Experts say the size of the construction project indicates Iran likely would be able to use the underground facility to enrich uranium as well — not just to build centrifuges. Those tube-shaped centrifuges, arranged in large cascades of dozens of machines, rapidly spin uranium gas to enrich it. Additional cascades spinning would allow Iran to quickly enrich uranium under the mountain’s protection.



“So the depth of the facility is a concern because it would be much harder for us. It would be much harder to destroy using conventional weapons, such as like a typical bunker buster bomb,” said Steven De La Fuente, a research associate at the center who led the analysis of the tunnel work.

The new Natanz facility is likely to be even deeper underground than Iran’s Fordo facility, another enrichment site that was exposed in 2009 by U.S. and other world leaders. That facility sparked fears in the West that Iran was hardening its program from airstrikes.

Such underground facilities led the U.S. to create the GBU-57 bomb, which can plow through at least 60 meters (200 feet) of earth before detonating, according to the American military. U.S. officials reportedly have discussed using two such bombs in succession to ensure a site is destroyed. It is not clear that such a one-two punch would damage a facility as deep as the one at Natanz.

With such bombs potentially off the table, the U.S. and its allies are left with fewer options to target the site. If diplomacy fails, sabotage attacks may resume.

Already, Natanz has been targeted by the Stuxnet virus, believed to be an Israeli and American creation, which destroyed Iranian centrifuges. Israel also is believed to have killed scientists involved in the program, struck facilities with bomb-carrying drones and launched other attacks. Israel’s government declined to comment.

Experts say such disruptive actions may push Tehran even closer to the bomb — and put its program even deeper into the mountain where airstrikes, further sabotage and spies may not be able to reach it.

“Sabotage may roll back Iran’s nuclear program in the short-term, but it is not a viable, long-term strategy for guarding against a nuclear-armed Iran,” said Davenport, the nonproliferation expert. “Driving Iran’s nuclear program further underground increases the proliferation risk.”

This facility is impressive and not easy to disable but articles like these are aimed to give false hope to the perceived enemy in typical American fashion. For perspective: scuds were unstoppable; then ASBM were unstoppable; then Hypersonic missiles were unstoppable; now facilities are too deep to penetrate. American agencies continue to fool people with these claims from time-to-time while homework is done behind-the-scenes.

US has a well-developed arms industry and it will continue to develop countermeasures for perceived threats around the world. People tend to forget that the Americans aim for developing countermeasures to Chinese and Russian threats let alone that of regional powers. Both China and Russia have developed deeply buried facilities so US is focused on how to disable these facilities in case of war.

This:

Screenshot-2023-05-03-at-8.03.21-PM.png

Taken from here.

- is OUTDATED information. This level of capability was advertised back in 2012.

Americans have continued to improve GBU-57 Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP) bunker buster and have not disclosed capabilities of improved variants:

While they couldn't comment on how many GBU-57 weapons received the upgrade for operational security reasons, "the Enhanced Threat Response IV modification improved the weapon's performance against hard and deeply buried targets," Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said last week. The announcement was first reported last week by Bloomberg News.


As The War Zone has outlined in the past, MOP development efforts date back to at least 2002. In 2009, Boeing was awarded contracts to complete aircraft integration with MOP. Since then, seven GBU-57 variants have emerged. The GBU-57/B, -57A/B, and -57B/B were fitted with BLU-127/B, -127A/B, and -127B/B warheads, respectively, along with guidance and other components that include fins and tails.

Subsequent improvements Boeing made to the GBU-57C/B and -57D/B variants are unclear, although the latter included an upgraded fuze. From 2016 the GBU-57E/B model – likely developed as part of the Enhanced Threat Reduction IV (ETR-IV) upgrade program – has been in the U.S. Air Force's inventory, fitted with the BLU-127C/B warhead. Little is known specifically about the capabilities of the latest variant, the GBU-57F/B.
Regardless, the GBU-57 program is very much an iterative one and these weapons are being continuously enhanced to defeat changing threats abroad.


Americans have not even disclosed how many GBU-57 variants are produced:

Little is known about how many total MOPs have been delivered to the Air Force by Boeing. According to the service, 20 MOPs had been delivered by Boeing (accurate as of November 2015). Beyond this, we just don’t know how many may be in the Air Force’s possession, or how many have been retrofitted with the Enhanced Threat Response-IV (ETR-IV) or other modifications. That number has likely grown substantially due to the growing chances of a major military confrontation abroad.


Therefore, nobody in public domain can tell how capable upgraded variants of GBU-57 are in terms of penetrating layers of earth and concrete. More importantly, GBU-57 is a precision munition and two or more can be dropped on the same spot in sequential manner to open up the ground until the target is engaged.

It also depends upon how an underground facility is constructed and how big it is. Compartmentalization can make some chambers survivable but the facility on the whole would have entrances, exits, and ventilation points. These can be targeted to entomb the facility.

USAF is very likely to use a combination of munitions to entomb a massive underground facility. Rescue missions will be necessary to attempt to save those who are caught inside in the aftermath.

-----

The most powerful American bunker buster is B61-12 in fact. This bomb can destroy virtually any underground facility in the world.




Imagine this.

After the breaking of this news, I was fascinated by the mental gymnastic of the American media in their attempts to create scenarios where they would still be able to damage these facilities. In one of these scenarios (I kid you not) they were talking about sending commandos in to destroy these facilities.

The reality is this, short of a full on invasion, which is beyond the capability of the Americans, there is nothing the Americans can do to stop the Iranian nuclear program. They need to realise that it is a purely political decision which is the deciding factor whether Iran goes nuclear or not openly. Now, whether Iran actually has nukes or not already, that's a separate discussion.

As for this notion that KSA and the Turks would go nuclear after Iran. Thos countries would collapse within 24 hours if they were even sanctioned 1/100t of what Iran has been sanctioned. Moreover, the like of KSA and Turkey only have whatever technologies the west decide they can have.

See above.

Iranian members seem to grossly underestimate American warfighting options and capacity. Iraqi also had similar views but look at the country now.

US-led forces toppled Saddam regime in just 26 days back in 2003:

"Coalition forces in the second Gulf War were less than half the size of those deployed in the first one. Yet they achieved a much more ambitious goal-occupying all of Iraq, rather than just kicking the Iraqi army out of Kuwait-in almost half the time, with one-third the casualties, and at one-fourth the cost of the first war. Many will argue, in retrospect, that Saddam Hussein's forces were not all that formidable to begin with, and there is no doubt a great deal of truth in this. But they were capable enough when they fought the Iranian army to a draw in the 1980s and put down Kurdish and Shi'ite insurgencies in the 1990s. And, on paper at least, the Baathist regime's military enjoyed a big numerical advantage over U.S. and British forces. Although the Iraqi army was much degraded from its pre-1991 heyday, it still deployed more than 450,000 troops, including para-military units, the Republican Guard, and the Special Republican Guard, whose loyalty had been repeatedly demonstrated. Traditionally, war colleges have taught that to be sure of success, an attacking force must have a 3 to 1 advantage-a ratio that goes up to 6 to 1 in difficult terrain such as urban areas. Far from having a 3 to 1 advantage in Iraq, coalition ground forces (which never numbered more than 100,000) faced a 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 disadvantage.

That the United States and its allies won anyway-and won so quickly-must rank as one of the signal achievements in military history.
Previously, the gold standard of operational excellence had been the German blitzkrieg through the Low Countries and France in 1940. The Germans managed to conquer France, the Netherlands, and Belgium in just 44 days, at a cost of "only" 27,000 dead soldiers. The United States and Britain took just 26 days to conquer Iraq (a country 80 percent of the size of France), at a cost of 161 dead, making fabled generals such as Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison."



In comparison, Iranian forces could not capture Basra let alone come close to toppling Saddam regime in the 1980s:



The most significant offensive during that period was the campaign to capture Basra in January 1987. The vigorous and successful Iraqi defense of Basra against Iran's best military efforts was probably instrumental in persuading the Iranian leaders that their original hopes of winning the war were no longer realistic, thereby contributing to a further decline in morale.


It is true that Iraq was receiving weapons from several countries to fight a war with Iran but this much is expected in a prolonged war. US-led forces toppled Saddam regime in 2003 at such a pace that it was impossible for any country to provide weapons to Iraq in the given time frame. Iran trained and supported Muqatada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia during Iraqi insurgency phase in the (2004 - 2008) period. But US-led forces defeated Mehdi militia as noted in here, here, and here. Muqtada al-Sadr fled to Iran in 2007 due to safety concerns; he returned to Iraq in 2011 when Obama administration had withdrawn NATO from Iraq in view of a seemingly improved Iraqi security environment. Muqtada is a popular Iraqi politician as of late.

-----

American armed forces are battle-hardened courtesy of operations in AfPak to dismantle Al-Qaeda Network in the region as noted in here, Iraq to dismantle Saddam regime in the (2003 - 2011) period [see this, this, this, and this], Libya to dismantle Qaddafi regime as noted in here, and across Iraq and Syria to dismantle ISIL in the (2014 - 2021) period as noted in here.

Americans seem to have learned numerous lessons from these conflicts. Americans have developed new M1A2 Abrams variants that can withstand anti-tank munitions including ATGMs and IEDs, and outgun any tank in Iranian inventory. Americans have also developed a large number of armored vehicles to protect and support troops on the ground.






1111.jpg


American ground forces also have considerable air arms to support troops on the ground:




American ground forces are well-equipped and well-trained to fight in numerous conditions and environments. American ground forces have considerable urban warfare experience courtesy of operations in Iraq. Details of the battles that were fought in Iraqi cities in 2003 are in following link:


The Battle of Fallujah in 2004


If the insurgents were hoping for a replay of the Russian debacle in Grozny in 1994, they were disappointed. The strategy of “defenseless defense” used so effectively there did not work in Fallujah. The American and Iraqi forces were successful in countering this tactic by not rushing to the center of the city to be surrounded and eliminated piecemeal. Instead, they cleared and secured each building and the routes of ingress before moving on to the next. Additionally, some American and Iraqi forces remained behind the advance to keep the insurgents from reoccupying previously cleared areas. Establishing clear zones of operation and excellent communications facilitated this.

A key element in the success of the coalition in Fallujah was the application of American armor, namely the M1A2 Abrams tank. The Abrams was able to take enormous punishment and continue operating. In many instances, these tanks received multiple hits from RPG-7s, which failed to penetrate the heavy armor; even large improvised explosives failed to knock tanks out. Although the actual number is not currently released to the public, contemporary media reports show only two Abrams tanks were destroyed during this bitter battle. The tactics used by the Americans offset the inherent design weaknesses of tanks in the cities. Operating in pairs, tanks covered each other while others remained a short distance behind lending support. The same can be said about the Bradley vehicles, although their armor was far less capable. The Marines had dispersed their tanks to provide direct support to the riflemen, and this time-honored tactic worked to destroy systematically tough enemy positions. Conversely, the Army battalions assigned to this operation used a different approach. Instead, they led their assault with the heavy armor, which blasted through the city and unhinged the enemy defenses. This allowed for the rapid advance of the infantry and the clearing of their zone and ensured a swift victory.

The battle for Fallujah was a stunning victory with a historically low casualty rate for an urban fight of this size. It reaffirmed the capabilities of heavy armor in cities.




The Battle of Sadr City in 2008

Containing around a quarter of Baghdad’s estimated population of seven million in less than five square miles, Sadr City is one of the most densely populated areas where the United States has ever fought. Its population surpasses those of the sites of other urban battles, such as Manila in 1945, whose pre–World War II population was an estimated 1.1 million, or Seoul in 1950, with one million residents. As a battlefield (both in 2008 and an earlier battle in 2004), Sadr City exceeded any other part of Baghdad, in terms of density of both population and structures, where fighting occurred during the 2003 invasion.



-----

Let's take a look at American Air and Naval power and options now:



-----

US has fought in Iraq in line with its Theory of Limited War philosophy and still managed to defeat it and reshape its political landscape.


IF US had fought in Iraq in line with its Total War philosophy like against Japan in World War 2, it would have crushed Iraqi morale and will to fight long ago.



Sorry but Iran is a regional power and it stands NO chance against US in Total War. Iran can throw ballistic missiles at American bases in the Middle East but this will not help win the war. I can see that Iranians are nationalistic, brave, and motivated fighters but these qualities are not sufficient on their own.

I hope that Iran does not experience American fury in any way, shape, or form. I don't think that US has a plot to invade Iran but Iranians should seek to mend ties with US in my view. There is no Saddam out there to draw American attention away from Iran this time.
 
. .
This facility is impressive and not easy to disable but articles like these are aimed to give false hope to the perceived enemy in typical American fashion. For perspective: scuds were unstoppable; then ASBM were unstoppable; then Hypersonic missiles were unstoppable; now facilities are too deep to penetrate. American agencies continue to fool people with these claims from time-to-time while homework is done behind-the-scenes.

US has a well-developed arms industry and it will continue to develop countermeasures for perceived threats around the world. People tend to forget that the Americans aim for developing countermeasures to Chinese and Russian threats let alone that of regional powers. Both China and Russia have developed deeply buried facilities so US is focused on how to disable these facilities in case of war.

This:

Screenshot-2023-05-03-at-8.03.21-PM.png

Taken from here.

- is OUTDATED information. This level of capability was advertised back in 2012.

Americans have continued to improve GBU-57 Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP) bunker buster and have not disclosed capabilities of improved variants:

While they couldn't comment on how many GBU-57 weapons received the upgrade for operational security reasons, "the Enhanced Threat Response IV modification improved the weapon's performance against hard and deeply buried targets," Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said last week. The announcement was first reported last week by Bloomberg News.


As The War Zone has outlined in the past, MOP development efforts date back to at least 2002. In 2009, Boeing was awarded contracts to complete aircraft integration with MOP. Since then, seven GBU-57 variants have emerged. The GBU-57/B, -57A/B, and -57B/B were fitted with BLU-127/B, -127A/B, and -127B/B warheads, respectively, along with guidance and other components that include fins and tails.

Subsequent improvements Boeing made to the GBU-57C/B and -57D/B variants are unclear, although the latter included an upgraded fuze. From 2016 the GBU-57E/B model – likely developed as part of the Enhanced Threat Reduction IV (ETR-IV) upgrade program – has been in the U.S. Air Force's inventory, fitted with the BLU-127C/B warhead. Little is known specifically about the capabilities of the latest variant, the GBU-57F/B.
Regardless, the GBU-57 program is very much an iterative one and these weapons are being continuously enhanced to defeat changing threats abroad.


Americans have not even disclosed how many GBU-57 variants are produced:

Little is known about how many total MOPs have been delivered to the Air Force by Boeing. According to the service, 20 MOPs had been delivered by Boeing (accurate as of November 2015). Beyond this, we just don’t know how many may be in the Air Force’s possession, or how many have been retrofitted with the Enhanced Threat Response-IV (ETR-IV) or other modifications. That number has likely grown substantially due to the growing chances of a major military confrontation abroad.


Therefore, nobody in public domain can tell how capable upgraded variants of GBU-57 are in terms of penetrating layers of earth and concrete. More importantly, GBU-57 is a precision munition and two or more can be dropped on the same spot in sequential manner to open up the ground until the target is engaged.

It also depends upon how an underground facility is constructed and how big it is. Compartmentalization can make some chambers survivable but the facility on the whole would have entrances, exits, and ventilation points. These can be targeted to entomb the facility.

USAF is very likely to use a combination of munitions to entomb a massive underground facility. Rescue missions will be necessary to attempt to save those who are caught inside in the aftermath.

-----

The most powerful American bunker buster is B61-12 in fact. This bomb can destroy virtually any underground facility in the world.




Imagine this.



See above.

Iranian members seem to grossly underestimate American warfighting options and capacity. Iraqi also had similar views but look at the country now.

US-led forces toppled Saddam regime in just 26 days back in 2003:

"Coalition forces in the second Gulf War were less than half the size of those deployed in the first one. Yet they achieved a much more ambitious goal-occupying all of Iraq, rather than just kicking the Iraqi army out of Kuwait-in almost half the time, with one-third the casualties, and at one-fourth the cost of the first war. Many will argue, in retrospect, that Saddam Hussein's forces were not all that formidable to begin with, and there is no doubt a great deal of truth in this. But they were capable enough when they fought the Iranian army to a draw in the 1980s and put down Kurdish and Shi'ite insurgencies in the 1990s. And, on paper at least, the Baathist regime's military enjoyed a big numerical advantage over U.S. and British forces. Although the Iraqi army was much degraded from its pre-1991 heyday, it still deployed more than 450,000 troops, including para-military units, the Republican Guard, and the Special Republican Guard, whose loyalty had been repeatedly demonstrated. Traditionally, war colleges have taught that to be sure of success, an attacking force must have a 3 to 1 advantage-a ratio that goes up to 6 to 1 in difficult terrain such as urban areas. Far from having a 3 to 1 advantage in Iraq, coalition ground forces (which never numbered more than 100,000) faced a 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 disadvantage.

That the United States and its allies won anyway-and won so quickly-must rank as one of the signal achievements in military history.
Previously, the gold standard of operational excellence had been the German blitzkrieg through the Low Countries and France in 1940. The Germans managed to conquer France, the Netherlands, and Belgium in just 44 days, at a cost of "only" 27,000 dead soldiers. The United States and Britain took just 26 days to conquer Iraq (a country 80 percent of the size of France), at a cost of 161 dead, making fabled generals such as Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison."



In comparison, Iranian forces could not capture Basra let alone come close to toppling Saddam regime in the 1980s:



The most significant offensive during that period was the campaign to capture Basra in January 1987. The vigorous and successful Iraqi defense of Basra against Iran's best military efforts was probably instrumental in persuading the Iranian leaders that their original hopes of winning the war were no longer realistic, thereby contributing to a further decline in morale.


It is true that Iraq was receiving weapons from several countries to fight a war with Iran but this much is expected in a prolonged war. US-led forces toppled Saddam regime in 2003 at such a pace that it was impossible for any country to provide weapons to Iraq in the given time frame. Iran trained and supported Muqatada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia during Iraqi insurgency phase in the (2004 - 2008) period. But US-led forces defeated Mehdi militia as noted in here, here, and here. Muqtada al-Sadr fled to Iran in 2007 due to safety concerns; he returned to Iraq in 2011 when Obama administration had withdrawn NATO from Iraq in view of a seemingly improved Iraqi security environment. Muqtada is a popular Iraqi politician as of late.

-----

American armed forces are battle-hardened courtesy of operations in AfPak to dismantle Al-Qaeda Network in the region as noted in here, Iraq to dismantle Saddam regime in the (2003 - 2011) period [see this, this, this, and this], Libya to dismantle Qaddafi regime as noted in here, and across Iraq and Syria to dismantle ISIL in the (2014 - 2021) period as noted in here.

Americans seem to have learned numerous lessons from these conflicts. Americans have developed new M1A2 Abrams variants that can withstand anti-tank munitions including ATGMs and IEDs, and outgun any tank in Iranian inventory. Americans have also developed a large number of armored vehicles to protect and support troops on the ground.






1111.jpg


American ground forces also have considerable air arms to support troops on the ground:




American ground forces are well-equipped and well-trained to fight in numerous conditions and environments. American ground forces have considerable urban warfare experience courtesy of operations in Iraq. Details of the battles that were fought in Iraqi cities in 2003 are in following link:


The Battle of Fallujah in 2004

If the insurgents were hoping for a replay of the Russian debacle in Grozny in 1994, they were disappointed. The strategy of “defenseless defense” used so effectively there did not work in Fallujah. The American and Iraqi forces were successful in countering this tactic by not rushing to the center of the city to be surrounded and eliminated piecemeal. Instead, they cleared and secured each building and the routes of ingress before moving on to the next. Additionally, some American and Iraqi forces remained behind the advance to keep the insurgents from reoccupying previously cleared areas. Establishing clear zones of operation and excellent communications facilitated this.

A key element in the success of the coalition in Fallujah was the application of American armor, namely the M1A2 Abrams tank. The Abrams was able to take enormous punishment and continue operating. In many instances, these tanks received multiple hits from RPG-7s, which failed to penetrate the heavy armor; even large improvised explosives failed to knock tanks out. Although the actual number is not currently released to the public, contemporary media reports show only two Abrams tanks were destroyed during this bitter battle. The tactics used by the Americans offset the inherent design weaknesses of tanks in the cities. Operating in pairs, tanks covered each other while others remained a short distance behind lending support. The same can be said about the Bradley vehicles, although their armor was far less capable. The Marines had dispersed their tanks to provide direct support to the riflemen, and this time-honored tactic worked to destroy systematically tough enemy positions. Conversely, the Army battalions assigned to this operation used a different approach. Instead, they led their assault with the heavy armor, which blasted through the city and unhinged the enemy defenses. This allowed for the rapid advance of the infantry and the clearing of their zone and ensured a swift victory.


The battle for Fallujah was a stunning victory with a historically low casualty rate for an urban fight of this size. It reaffirmed the capabilities of heavy armor in cities.



The Battle of Sadr City in 2008

Containing around a quarter of Baghdad’s estimated population of seven million in less than five square miles, Sadr City is one of the most densely populated areas where the United States has ever fought. Its population surpasses those of the sites of other urban battles, such as Manila in 1945, whose pre–World War II population was an estimated 1.1 million, or Seoul in 1950, with one million residents. As a battlefield (both in 2008 and an earlier battle in 2004), Sadr City exceeded any other part of Baghdad, in terms of density of both population and structures, where fighting occurred during the 2003 invasion.



-----

Let's take a look at American Air and Naval power and options now:



-----

US has fought in Iraq in line with its Theory of Limited War philosophy and still managed to defeat it and reshape its political landscape.


IF US had fought in Iraq in line with its Total War philosophy like against Japan in World War 2, it would have crushed Iraqi morale and will to fight long ago.



Sorry but Iran is a regional power and it stands NO chance against US in Total War. Iran can throw ballistic missiles at American bases in the Middle East but this will not help win the war. I can see that Iranians are nationalistic, brave, and motivated fighters but these qualities are not sufficient on their own.

I hope that Iran does not experience American fury in any way, shape, or form. I don't think that US has a plot to invade Iran but Iranians should seek to mend ties with US in my view. There is no Saddam out there to draw American attention away from Iran this time.
Murica is just a Hollywood movie. They can't even win over taliban.

They can only bully weak countries.
 
Last edited:
.
Murica is just a Hollywood movie. They can't even win over taliban.

They can only bully waek countries.

The British Empire was weak in the 1700s?
The British Empire was weak in the 1800s?
The Mexican Empire was weak in the 1800s?
The Spanish Empire was weak in the 1800s?
Germany was weak in World War 2?
Japan was weak in World War 2?
North Korea was weak in 1950?
Iraq was weak in 1991?
Yugoslavia was weak in the 1990s?

It's not like US was a superpower from the get-go. Americans have fought and won numerous battles even in less-than-ideal conditions throughout history. But Americans have also shown much restraint in conflicts after World War 2 in line with Theory of Limited War.

Do tell me what modern Iran has to show in terms of warfare in comparison.

Taliban has hideouts in neighboring countries and can blend with locals. US wasn't interested in chasing Taliban everywhere in the region. US just made sure that Taliban would agree to not allow Al-Qaeda types to misuse Afghan soil like in the past.

Unlike Taliban who reside in a landlocked environment, Iran is a proper country with infrastructure and government and is accessible through Arabian Sea. War with Iran will be of entirely different character than it was with Taliban - hypothetically speaking.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom