←back to thread

122 points jbegley | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.325s | source
Show context
cluckindan ◴[] No.44369995[source]
You don’t need to be a genius to figure out that centrifuges installed 70–80 meters underground will be largely unaffected by bombs which are believed to have an effect down to a depth of 60 meters.
replies(8): >>44370297 #>>44370428 #>>44370451 #>>44370592 #>>44370714 #>>44371331 #>>44372376 #>>44375665 #
buildbot ◴[] No.44370428[source]
Really? I think calculating the achieved overpressure to whatever structure underground after 6x 30k pound bomb impacts is far into the “genius” category. I’d wager you’d need a team of pretty smart people to even begin to get a wrong model of that.
replies(2): >>44370489 #>>44370520 #
potato3732842 ◴[] No.44370489[source]
This is not a "genius" problem. This is mundane number crunching that every military has been doing for hundreds of years with ever increasing accuracy.

You need a few bombs and some places of varying geology to set them off. You take those data points, cross reference with all your historical knowledge and should be able to say whether a bunker of given construction a given depth under a given geology can be breached.

I hate how allergic to just testing and prototyping things modern engineering culture is.

Yeah, the bomb is expensive, but you gotta test it too so if you do it all right you get two birds with one stone.

replies(2): >>44370585 #>>44370598 #
1. PaulHoule ◴[] No.44370598[source]
They tested those bombs plenty. It's clear that they punched three holes in that mountain, but it's a whole frickin' mountain.

Never mind the fact that bomb damage assessment is one of the most difficult problems in photograph interpretation -- it's hard enough when the target is above ground, worse when it isn't.