I was suspicious of that as well, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on that subject to speak on it, so didn't include it. But I doubt any country can build that extensive of a nuclear factory in so few years.

I can't speak to that aspect. But I firmly believe that if our military planned and carried out this strike, then we had very good evidence that their bunkers were at a depth these ordinance could reach.

You can't break what is already broken

Someone, somewhere, said they don't like you.

Now CRY!

That's why we need the Orbital Ion Cannon.

"Hey there, you sexy bomb... I can't stay away!"

You triggered a thought: what if those bunker busters carried a payload of corrosive material, something that the explosive event could deeply embed into the concrete, slowly degrading its strength - possibly until total failure?

It has been around in some form since there has been manmade concrete.

Personally, I bought a box of chopped fibers for inclusion in a concrete project some 30 years ago - sold labeled for that specific use.

IIRC this type of thing isn't new - there was research into the possibility of making ships out of ice mixed with sawdust in WWII.

I asked because I've heard such advice for bloody countryside home floors. Not even something requiring it.

So Iran knew EXACTLY how strong they needed to make their defenses!
Pretty stupid of the American military to give that info to a game developer, that would obviously use it.

I love how unhinged random fan wikis sound without context. Here for instance: Bunker Buster, see also: Concrete Donkey and Buffalo of Lies

But the information still seems valid.

By your math, they absolutely can simply try again: one more time.

By my math, the bunker-buster bomb makers just got a big new contract.

something something DOGE of WAR something...

Yeah psi is a pretty common unit and trivial to swap between if SI is needed.

Arguments like above often show a lack of real world experience.

Egyptians stacked blocks of stone to build the pyramids.

Roman concrete was impressively strong.

Neither of them had steel-reinforced concrete.

Neither did Gothic cathedrals, which is why they needed flying buttresses.

Reinforced concrete as we know it today is a 19th century innovation, as I understand it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete?wprov=sfla1

Maybe the commenter was thinking of adobe.

The greater strength is achieved by turning concrete into a composite material with the addition of steel or other fibers.

Fiber reinforcment is thousands of years old.

So I did not read the article because of a paywall I'm too lazy to circumvent right now

But from OP's summary, the main technology they're talking about is concrete reinforced with steel or other fibers.

And that's definitely more advanced than "pyramid age"

But it's also pretty much a direct descendant of mud brick reinforced with straw which humanity has been using since well before the pyramids. Same basic concept, different materials.

So yes and no.