US did not use bunker-buster bombs on one of Iran's nuclear sites, top general tells lawmakers, citing depth of the targ
Source: C NN
The US military did not use bunker-buster bombs on one of Irans largest nuclear sites last weekend because the site is so deep that the bombs likely would not have been effective, the US top general told senators during a briefing on Thursday.
The comment by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, which was described by three people who heard his remarks and a fourth who was briefed on them, is the first known explanation given for why the US military did not use the Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb against the Isfahan site in central Iran. US officials believe Isfahans underground structures house nearly 60% of Irans enriched uranium stockpile, which Iran would need in order to ever produce a nuclear weapon.
US B2 bombers dropped over a dozen bunker-buster bombs on Irans Fordow and Natanz nuclear sites. But Isfahan was only struck by Tomahawk missiles launched from a US submarine.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/27/politics/bunker-buster-bomb-isfahan-iran

Oopsie Daisy
(6,247 posts)Prairie Gates
(5,730 posts)A more phony baloney media phrase I cannot recall.
IronLionZion
(49,511 posts)It covers many types of penetrator bombs. MOP happens to be the biggest.
The term bunker buster was first used in 1985 when the U.S. Air Force introduced a bomb designed to penetrate deep underground. The British employed similar bombs in WWII, the 5-ton Tallboy and the 10-ton Grand Slam. These bombs were commonly referred to as earthquake bombs, not bunker busters.
Prairie Gates
(5,730 posts)I did a little NGram on it. Obviously, the limitations of Ngram is that it only captures usage in written documents available to Google. As a result, Ngram will tend to have more recent spikes for some terms simply as a function of the availability of scanned, searchable text, etc. However, it is still a pretty good indication of a term's use.
The term bunker buster was indeed around since the 1940s meaning more or less what it means today, though there were other uses. But its use is extremely rare until the 1980s when the defense industry decides to use it as a selling tool for appropriations committees. Hence, the spike in the 80s is mostly associated with Congressional documents. There is additional use in media for the first Gulf War. Notably, the term is mostly non-existent during the entirety of the Vietnam period (for which we have plenty of text-searchable documents), which at least suggest it was not in widespread use even in military contexts after World War II.
The term really takes off (see the NGram link) in the early 2000s with the war on terror, a massive media-driven spike in usage. It is, in short, a marketing gimmick for the military industrial complex at best, and a little magical fairy tale invented by the US media at worst. Like I said, phony baloney.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=bunker+buster&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3
Bluetus
(1,341 posts)just to humor Trump.
They could have accomplished the same thing with a 97-cent Sharpie pen.
Lovie777
(19,463 posts)more lies, lies on the lies, different lies to cover up the other lies. The rollercoaster never ends.
shithole musk republicans and liars and very corrupt.
LudwigPastorius
(13,024 posts)Gotcha
Iran's going to have a bomb within 6 months.
Bayard
(26,152 posts)SaveThePlanet2025
(14 posts)Left Behind at 1PM youtube music video
highplainsdem
(57,554 posts)multiple times in different forums here since joining DU only a few hours ago.