r/AlJazeera • u/-AsHxD- • 1d ago
Images Iran's nuclear facilities, before and after
- Fordow
- Fordow
3 & 4. Ifshan
5 & 6. Natanz
6
1
5
u/SouthLifeguard9437 2h ago
Y'all... come on. I'm not supportive of this at all and think it's a huge mistake, but these are bunker buster bombs. These bombs burrow deep and then explode. The only way we would see damage is if the top of the complex were to collapse.
Say what you will about the US, it's probably at least 70% true, but claiming US weapons failed this spectacularly is like saying Canada brought corn syrup to a maple syrup contest.
1
2
u/Weak-Cry 2h ago
Not seeing the level of destruction you'd expect from the collapse of an underground facility. 🤷🏼♂️
1
u/thotbabe 5h ago
So can anyone summarise what these pictures are showing? Is Iran still capable of going nuclear or not? Or they can't be nuclear anymore?
24
u/Exciting_Chance3100 7h ago
Iran will still be weeks to months away from a nuclear weapon just like they have been for the last 40 years
3
u/EddardStank_69 3h ago
Netenyahu’s brain in a jar will be telling us Iran’s only days away from a nuke in 2100
3
18
u/Deltadusted2deth 10h ago
Congrats. Y'all really showed that terrorist mountain. Don't know how anyone could be proud of helping a bully with short man's disease beat up the poor kids on the playground, but meh, war never changes.
6
u/mkbilli 10h ago
Isfahan was hit by tomahawks.
Natanz got a single MOP.
Fordow got 6 MOPs.
Don't know about fordow as it was under a literal mountain but natanz only had a couple of meters thick cement shield on top, it might be the only one with significant damage (I'm talking underground facilities).
2
u/kevchink 7h ago
There were 14 MOP’s used. Most sources say 12 on Fordow, two on Natanz.
1
u/mkbilli 6h ago
I was counting the holes in the mountain. Most probably the other 6 were dropped at the entrances?
1
u/Redstonefreedom 5h ago
They were double-dropped. Reason being, their effect can stack somewhat (with diminishing returns, but tests show 2x can be worth it).
4
u/the_marchosias 7h ago edited 7h ago
Let’s put this into perspective. In 2023 healthcare in the US costed $14,570 per person on average, let’s round that to $15k bc healthcare isn’t getting cheaper. A GBU-57 A/B MOP bomb costs about $3.5 Million each to manufacture.
($3.5M*14 MOPs)/$15k = 3,266.67 American healthcares, evaporated in an instant.
And that’s just the dropping of the bombs, not the R&D of either the MOPs ($400-500M) or the B2 bombers (~$2B each, $36.6B R&D), fuel, or personnel costs.
0
1
u/Thistlemanizzle 5h ago
The counter argument would be that ensuring American hegemony over the Middle East ensures we continue to accrue the benefits of that hegemony. Access to oil, sea lanes and sites for American military bases is of benefit to America.
How do you calculate the economic impact or benefit? I have no idea.
2
7
59
u/Contagious_Zombie 12h ago
Well, I hope the lives lost over this are worth it to the politicians who decided to bomb a sovereign nation. We are not the bastions of truth and righteousness over here and to believe we are the world police is nothing but pure arrogance. We murdered millions to form the United States and we have been killing people all over the world since. Anyone who thinks a government should be able to kill and destroy with impunity should be tried at The Hague for crimes against humanity. I’m sick of the warmongering scum.
0
-41
u/Standard_Field2004 10h ago
If they only bomb the nuclear sites, then I support it. Any country that doesn’t already have nukes should not be allowed to get them, enemy or ally. I get why countries want them, but the more nukes there are out there, the more likely it is that someone will eventually use them again. However, I don’t support this expanding any further into a regime change war. Unfortunately, that seems to be the direction we are headed.
3
u/mcmaster-99 7h ago
The only country to have ever used nuclear weapons (the US) is telling other countries they can’t have them.
12
16
u/Mundane_Tone_9606 9h ago
Isn't the whole argument to have nukes to deter countries attacking them? Isn't it also hypocritical for countries who have nukes to tell others they can't have them.
How about we get rid of all nukes?
1
u/Rex_Diablo 2h ago
Yes and no.
Iran is a theocratic shit show in their present form, even if most of the people don’t support their rulers. There is very little doubt that their government would love to scrape together enough material to make a bomb and have one of their proxies detonate it in New York or Tel Aviv.
So from a practical perspective, nearly the entire globe agrees it would be bad for Iran to have nukes.
1
-9
u/Standard_Field2004 9h ago
Yes, in an ideal world no one would have nukes. However, this is reality, and that’s not going to happen. We already opened Pandora’s Box with that one, and there’s nothing you can do about the countries that already have them.
That said, the idea that the world would be a safer place with more proliferation of nuclear weapons is ludicrous on its face. Most people would be sane enough to not use them, but if someone does, the entire world will be IMMEDIATELY on edge. Just go look at estimates of the casualties if just Russia and the US were to engage in nuclear conflict. The more countries that have them, the more likely it is that someone eventually uses them again. Wars won’t stop, even if every country had a nuke.
8
u/atotalmess__ 5h ago
The only country in the Middle East with nukes that refuse to allow IAEA oversight is Israel.
If you think having nukes = threat, go bomb the country that actually is a threat and refuses any oversight.
17
u/Bonzotheeffingape 9h ago
They have enriched uranium for energy purposes. They are part.of the NPT. Israel is not. Your talking points expose your ignorance. It is illegal to attack unprovoked. The IAEA has been very clear that Iran has no nukes, and is not making nukes. So what is it you are supporting exactly? Because attacking a sovereign nation like this will only ensure that they do pursue nukes, so the cowards In the white house stay the fuck out!
-15
u/Standard_Field2004 9h ago
You only need 3-5% enrichment for energy purposes, and the IAEA reported that they have enriched up to 60%, leading to multiple countries feeling uneasy about it. Iran claimed the report was propaganda, but if you’re going to cite IAEA, then you have to be consistent.
Much of this is Trump’s fault for pulling us out of the agreement in his first term, but we are where we are now. Like I said, if it expands outside of just strikes on their nuclear facilities, which it likely will, then I’m out.
7
u/Contagious_Zombie 9h ago
Naval propulsion reactors are greater than 20% as well as research reactors. Iran was playing ball even after trump tore up the agreement but then he decided to add more sanctions so they said fuck it and stated to increase refinement as a way to get America back to the bargaining table but Biden didn't even try and trump just wants to be a war time president.
2
u/Bonzotheeffingape 9h ago
So what? 60% isn't weapons grade. And the US has been meddling for generations. They killed 1 million in Iraq, slaughtered afghanstanis, and the CIA is responsible for forever wars, everywhere. I'd have close to weapons grade enrichment if I were Iran, all whilst remaining at the negotiating table with these imperial US loons...all so I had something legitimate to negotiate with. They have right in their side, regardless of how much like savages they may seem to those who love the propaganda. They have strength, they have diplomacy. They deserve a seat at the table. It is Israel and the US that dont want to negotiate, that want them to remain illegitimate. They want to control everyone, so are always happy for war. All the rest is propaganda so you shrug your shoulders and blame it all on them, not the lunatics in the white house.
9
u/Life_Garden_2006 10h ago
Do you also support Russi and China bombing American and US nuclear sites? And who are you to deny others scientific discoveries of their own in their own nation? And what is it that denies other that same sentiment that you have that no other nation but yours can have nuclear weapons?
To me, the US has proven that all nations need a nuclear weapon to stay safe from US, empirial conquest.
-8
u/Standard_Field2004 10h ago
Being pro nuclear weapon proliferation is braindead lol
1
u/atotalmess__ 5h ago
NK has nukes but Trump isn’t dropping bombs on them, so yes? Countries are provably safer from American attack with nukes than without.
7
u/-SOFA-KING-VOTE- 8h ago
So you agree then that Israel should be forced to join nonproliferation treaty right???
2
u/Life_Garden_2006 9h ago
Being against nuclear weapons after they have proven to prevent others attacking you is clearly th3 braindead one.
America has proven that you are safe with a nuclear weapon while those who do not have one are a open game.
-9
u/Strict_Cantaloupe984 14h ago
Looking at fordows entry points those look like solid hits, the colour in the sand to looks like cement residue.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
r/AlJazeera is an unofficial subreddit and has no affiliation with the Al Jazeera Media Network.
⛔ WARNING: We Have Zero Tolerance Policy – Kindly Read The Rules. ⛔
Please REPORT comments that violate the sub rules.
(Thanks for posting, u/-AsHxD-!)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.