It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran ‘smart concrete’ to protect N-sites from US bunker busters

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Found the sucker

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Iran's Nuclear Facilities May Be Dug In Too Deep To Hit (posted almost 6 years ago




posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
why does a peaceful program need protection ?


this is why...




posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Some guys here (almost all) are pretty amzed of the new iranian concrete.

What i can say is, first, a big LOL.
Secondly...have you ever heard of...(drum beats)...MULTIPLE strikes?

Sure, the new concrete will whithstand one bunker-buster hit.
But what about 2? Or 3?

Really, stop dreaming Iran nuclear sites are impenetrable
.I think (not sure) that Israel might have 150 BBLU's.
Or they are about to get it.
150 divided to 3 underground facilities = 50 / target.

Its not about how thick is the concrete or how advanced and resistent is that concrete.Its about how many bunker-busters will need to get thru.I think 3-4 will do the job.

Not going to go into how many planes will be needed or how will iranian AA's do to prevent the bombing.All i am saying is that 3-4 BBLU's dropped one after the other will get thru.
edit on 12-3-2012 by Recollector because: *

edit on 12-3-2012 by Recollector because: *



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Swizzy
 



1. If they want to get through some concrete, they will.
2. Even if this concrete withstands everything the US has, are even a quarter of houses made from this? I doubt it.


1- How?
2- Israel and the US want to stop the nuclear program (that's what they publicly state), which means that the targets are nuclear-related facilities. Why would they bomb houses? Not even the WW2 civilian bombings were acceptable, and they were only used later on as psy-war.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


But that's another problem.

You see, Israel wants the best possible bunker-buster because they want to go in, and go out without making it a larger conflict. they want to drop a bomb, kill the facility they want, and get out without being accused of starting a serious war. They want to promote this as an preemptive attack.

A larger air campaign is the opposite of that. It means a serious war effort. Israel already stated they need the US assistance to carry on the attack, if not only for refueling purposes (Israel only has 5 american made refueling planes).

It does not only mean that it would be a larger military operation (which can translate to all-out-war), but it also makes them a target.

One thing is to invade Iran's airspace, drop 10 bombs at the same time, kill their objective and return. Another completely different thing is to have an air campaign that lasts days or weeks, and without the element of surprise. If you consider even worst variables like the Russian and the Chinese supplying Iran with better AA systems, and this goes to a whole new level of conflict.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Recollector
 



Secondly...have you ever heard of...(drum beats)...MULTIPLE strikes?


Yes. That would work. Assuming that the Iranians would just roll over and die..."because yes".

First, it's very difficult to attack the same exact spot twice. We are talking about a hole that at most, will have 5 meters across (example). That means that the second bomb has to breach that 5 meter hole. Usually, bombs aren't that precise.

You can achieve that, having laser-designated targets, but that means having troops on the ground, which is very, very risky. Especially if you consider they would have to actually be near a highly-defended facility.

Second, attacking the same place twice is one of the stupidest thing a military force can do. If you bomb a place once, it's attacked and you lost your element of surprise. Go in for the second strike, and wait to see AA flying against your planes.

When your enemy knows where you are going to strike, its much more easier to defend. It's the same philosophy you get when defending/attacking a valley. You are forced to go down that narrow path, which makes you an easier target.


Really, stop dreaming Iran nuclear sites are impenetrable.I think (not sure) that Israel might have 150 BBLU's.
Or they are about to get it.
150 divided to 3 underground facilities = 50 / target.


Yes, and how do they drop them?

The newer bunker-buster bombs are heavier, in order to have more piercing capability. You know what does that mean? That a plane that has X payload capability can only take X weight in bombs. A heavier bomb means it's harder for the plane to take more of them.

In the best case scenario, you have one bomb per plane. But fine, send a lot of planes.

First, that's a very high risk because you are risking losing a lot of planes, and then not having much of them to defend in case Iran has some sort of new effective AA missile (which, they have, although it's untested in combat).

Second, you have logistic. How do you make 50 planes fly through that distance without refueling them? Israel only has 5 of those refueling planes, and the US is reluctant to aid them in their lone-wolf attack.

And let's not forget, that a swarm of 50 or more planes is very easy to pick up on target. That amount of planes can't navigate in groups in low-level flying. Which means they either attack in waves (predictable), or they fly higher than the mountains and attack at the same time (bigger target).

And you are forgetting an important bit. It's not only 3 facilities. They are more than 10 (at the very least) important facilities, and spread through the whole Iran territory.

People have to face it and admit it, Iran made a hell of a defense for them-selfs.


Its not about how thick is the concrete or how advanced and resistent is that concrete.Its about how many bunker-busters will need to get thru.I think 3-4 will do the job.

Not going to go into how many planes will be needed or how will iranian AA's do to prevent the bombing.All i am saying is that 3-4 BBLU's dropped one after the other will get thru.


...which brings my final argument that I already used with previous posters.

Making such a larger air campaign against Iran is a pure declaration of war. One thing is a hard punch to the nose that cripples Iran and stops at that (fulfilling Israel/US objectives), but another completely different thing is to carry on a military operation for days.

That's not a preemptive attack. That's a war, and Iran has made it clear it will retaliate any way possible to them.


This whole situation isn't as simple as people think. And people are too hasty to underestimate Iran. Others overestimate it.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


By your logic, and that "evidence" map of yours, Germany is about to be invaded by the US army, and any facility it owns will be needing that "SUPER MEGA IRAN-CRETE!"
I present you my map, upload.wikimedia.org...:





What does this prove? Nothing... :|
edit on 12/3/2012 by Gramlengo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gramlengo
reply to post by purplemer
 


By your logic, and that "evidence" map of yours, Germany is about to be invaded by the US army, and any facility it owns will be needing that "SUPER MEGA IRAN-CRETE!"
I present you my map:



What does this prove? Nothing... :|


Germany is a NATO country, which means they have signed a treaty that authorizes the placement of US/allied bases, hospitals and airbases. Not only that, but Germany is also to accept cooperation in their own military bases.

And another important bit, is that the same bases you mentioned in your map, are actually used to carry on attacks in the Middle East. For instance, one of the hospitals used to treat US casualties is in Germany. They are sent there before being sent home (US).

Without realizing it, you just gave his argument more strength.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 



A hospital is a hospital, not a FOB, sorry.
Also, that map he posted shows US bases in:
Turkey (NATO)
en.wikipedia.org...

Saudi Arabia
en.wikipedia.org... tallations_in_Saudi_Arabia

Previously, in Saudi Arabia, its bases include King Abdul Aziz Air Base, Dhahran, King Fahd Air Base, Taif, King Khalid Air Base, Khamis Mushayt, Eskan Village Air Base, and Riyadh Air Base.[6] The Army moved all its bases and equipment to Qatar in 2003.[7]

And a few more that have been already moved or in countries that have allowed US presence.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Gramlengo
 


His point is that the U.S. is spreading it's dominance across the globe, with the military branch. If you look at the map, especially if they are divided by a timeline, you can see the US growing in strength and spreading it's influence across the map, surrounding Iran, leaving just one country in the area that hasn't either been attacked, conquered or bought out (the same Iran).

By giving him more examples of that, you are enforcing his argument.

You should read about the Cold War strategic warfare and base placement, you would comprehend more about the importance of advancing in terms of strategic influence.

Or Roman history.

Most people assume that the Roman empire was achieved only by war and conflict, but it wasn't. Many nations were given the option to either be conquered, or accept the Roman way. So, while in some countries they had war in order to control and conquer them, in others the country just pledged alliance with the Romans, accepted their language and costumes, and thus, were a part of the empire.

One of the most important things to the Romans was something that we also can observe today: currency.

You see, one of the ways to control a country, is by controlling it's currency, and might be a coincidence or not, but the U.S. latest wars were all within a narrow timeline after the countries that were attacked announced they would give up of the dollar, and start using their own currency/european/gold instead of the dollar.

That's actually one of the reasons why many people call the US "imperialistic".
edit on 12/3/12 by Tifozi because: added currency paragraph



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


I both understand and agree with your post, I was merely trying to show that posting an image/map out of context or minimal relevance is nothing more than just misinformation and bias.
That map is outdated and inaccurate. That was my point.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by wlord
some concrete ain't gonna stop a bunker buster


Hussein's bunker resisted several bunker busters and multiple tomahawk cruise missiles.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Just for the heck of it, I can make maps too!




posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Gramlengo
 


I can't be mad at you because of your avatar. Stig all the way... lol

But I understand your point. I just think his is stronger, in terms of an argument, not in terms of accuracy of the data.

Personally, I think all sides are to blame. The only reason why I take a lighter side on Iran, is because people label them as terrorist and whatnot, while they are only doing the exact same thing the US and other countries do.

I condemn them both.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


Agreed.
But consider this, for the past several days militant groups (which are most likely armed and funded by Iran) have been firing hundreds of rockets into Israeli cities, killing an injuring many civilians.
Thus, Iran is attacking Israel by proxy.
HAARETZ - Breaking News feed



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Gramlengo
 


Yes, but then again, by that logic, the guilt is also on the Israeli and American side.

Both have also carried on proxy attacks, like for instance the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists and other targets, and we could also mention several proxy wars or power-struggles funded and fueled by the US and Israel.

Personally, I think hate generates more hate, and hate leads to violence, and violence generates more violence, which then generates even more hate.

This has to stop. It's the only safe and reasonable thing to do.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Gramlengo
 


no i was not using logic.. How would you feel.... The US is not exactly an army of saints. They have just murdered between 1-2 million people in two wars neither of which were ratified by the UN.




posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Gramlengo
 


Well I think he intended everyone to use a little knowledge and common sense in tandem with his map. Take that map and the fact that a US ally as well as the US threaten them and it's a little different. You completely understood. Why make arguments for arguments sake? Just to waste time and space?



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Gramlengo
 


Hey yes you can make maps... But yours looks a little economical with the truth... Any may I ask if you would be a little black dot on your map if this was happening to your country..





posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Not saints.. hell they went out and drunkenly murdered civilians in the middle of the night last night!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join