¶ Trump's Return and Iran Tensions
Well, howdy there, Internet people. It's Bell again. So today, we're going to talk about Trump, bunkers, Iran, and meters. Okay. So Trump left the G7 meeting and flew back to D.C. to reportedly meet with the National Security Council. It was covered extensively in the media. Trump had also told people they should evacuate Tehran.
The French president commented, saying that if the U.S. can obtain a ceasefire, it's a good thing, and that France hopes for that to happen. Trump got on social media to say, He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a ceasefire. Trump then went on to say, quote, Much bigger than that. Whether purposely or not, a manual always gets it wrong. Stay tuned.
That's led to more speculation about direct U.S. involvement, with the media hyping up different weapons systems in that bizarre pregame show style of coverage reminiscent of the lead-up to Desert Storm.
¶ GBU-57 Bunker Buster Limitations
There's been a lot of focus on the GBU-57 mop. That's Massive Ordnance Penetrator. This is commonly called a Bunker Buster, but it's the daddy of all Bunker Busters. The thing is almost 3 feet in diameter, and it's more than 20 feet long. It weighs a ton. Well, actually, it weighs around 10 to 15 tons. So, why the focus on this particular device? Because one of Iran's nuclear facilities is deep in a mountain in North Iran. Because of its construction, Israel has been unable to hit the facility.
The GBU-57 is the most effective bunker buster known. It can penetrate 200 feet according to known specs. The problem is that the facility in question is estimated to be 80 to 90 meters deep. For those not quick on conversions, that's somewhere between about 60 to 95 feet too deep for the GBU-57 to work, based on public specs.
All countries lie about the capabilities of their systems. Most countries exaggerate the effectiveness of their weapons as a deterrent or as domestic propaganda, depending on the country. Looking at you, Russia. The U.S. tends to lie and say our weapons are less effective than they are. That being said, you're talking about an almost 50% increase over stated capability.
¶ Defining Military Objectives and Exit
Some are suggesting multiple strikes on the same location. Okay, maybe that works. But here's my question. If the US is going to get involved, what exactly is the military objective? We have to normalize asking exactly what the goal is, specifically. We just ended decades of constant mission creep. Before Trump starts a war, what exactly is the objective? to take out this specific facility? But even with that limited goal, I still have a question.
It's a secure hardened target of unknown exact depth that would be hit using a system that according to specs can't go that deep. How do you know you completed the objective? What method of confirmation will be used? Because from what I understand of the facility, satellites won't cut it, and it seems unlikely that human assets are going to be able to check it out.
It seems like the only confirmation would be through Iranian signal intercepts, which will be subject to disinformation. We won't know when the objective is completed, and that's worrying to me. Before we end up in another forever war, what is the objective? How do we know when it's accomplished? And what's the exit strategy for the conflict? We need to ask this every time of any president who plans on military action. Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.