this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
309 points (81.2% liked)

Technology

72262 readers
4633 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Previously, a yield strength of 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) was enough for concrete to be rated as “high strength,” with the best going up to 10,000 psi. The new UHPC can withstand 40,000 psi or more.

The greater strength is achieved by turning concrete into a composite material with the addition of steel or other fibers. These fibers hold the concrete together and prevent cracks from spreading throughout it, negating the brittleness. “Instead of getting a few large cracks in a concrete panel, you get lots of smaller cracks,” says Barnett. “The fibers give it more fracture energy.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub 18 points 6 days ago

"no, these missiles only bust the bunkers we tested them on."

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 5 points 6 days ago

If it's reinforced steel concrete, it would be much harder to bunker bust.

[–] Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world 219 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Holy nothing burger, Batman!

First off, this article is from 2022, re-released to farm clicks from the current hype cycle.

Secondly, this is conjecture on top of conjecture. They discuss that we can't know the current damage from satellite, and Iran down plays the damage. Then they go on to say "concrete is strong and can be stronger".

Articles like this annoy me. It's all based on lots of unsubstantiated claims, and then one guy's theoretical research. We don't know the strength of the bombs. We don't know the strength of Iran's bunkers. We don't know how much damage was done. None of this has changed. I doubt we'll ever really know. But throw whatever political spin on it you want, and now you've got a click worthy news article.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 41 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

There's also the fact that the majority of Iran's nuclear facilities were built before UHPC, the concrete discussed in the article, was available!

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 11 points 1 week ago

In the late 2000s, for instance, rumors circulated about a bunker in Iran struck by a bunker-buster bomb. The bomb had failed to penetrate—and remained embedded in—the surface of the bunker, presumably until the occupants called in a bomb-disposal team. Rather than smashing through the concrete, the bomb had been unexpectedly stopped dead. The reason was not hard to guess: Iran was a leader in the new technology of Ultra High Performance Concrete, or UHPC, and its latest concrete advancements were evidently too much for standard bunker busters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordow_Fuel_Enrichment_Plant

Construction on the facility started in 2006, but the existence of the enrichment plant was only disclosed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by Iran on 21 September 2009,[6][7] after the site became known to Western intelligence services. Western officials strongly condemned Iran for not disclosing the site earlier;

Seems to fall into the same timeframe.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 68 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sounds to me like someone is trying to justify actually using a tactical, atomic bunker buster.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 week ago (14 children)

tactical

Lol, they're gonna do the strategic one next

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 61 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I suspect the world would be safer if everyone just let Trump think he won.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

That's impossible. "Make America Great Again" is a slogan that he can only abuse as long as there are problems. If he wants to stay in power it's in his best interest to create problems. It's what fascists dictators have been doing since forever. Even if there are no problems they will point towards something and make you think it is a problem, so they can market themselves as the solution. If he would "win" he would lose his power, which is obviously the opposite of what somebody like Trump wants.

[–] noughtnaut@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That is depressingly insightful. See also: the internal war on everyone who isn't a middle-aged white cis het man (and even some of them, too). Just negativity all around.

What really brings me down it's the certainty that even if that is guy was suddenly not there anymore, there is a whole gaggle of like folk ready to continue that same rhetoric. How do you even dig yourselves out of that?

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

That is depressingly insightful. See also: the internal war on everyone who isn’t a middle-aged white cis het man (and even some of them, too). Just negativity all around.

Yes. Separating the people is an extremely strong tool in the authoritarian handbook. It is such a strong tool that the things it accomplishes are too much to list here. There are a lot of books on the matter. I think it's even explained in some of the CIA books.

What really brings me down it’s the certainty that even if that is guy was suddenly not there anymore, there is a whole gaggle of like folk ready to continue that same rhetoric. How do you even dig yourselves out of that?

This is not completely correct. People fighting back against their oppressors sends an extremely strong message. And it even goes both way. For example, the attack on the USA Capitol of January 6th gave these Magazis a lot of power because they saw unity in their oppression.

The good thing is that there's always more good people than bad.

[–] davepleasebehave@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

I wonder if Hasbara accounts are pressing this narrative?

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 40 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That concrete really isn't new and really isn't that special. There's a reason they built it under a mountain - because the mountain does what concrete can't.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 13 points 1 week ago

It is not that it can do what concrete cannot. It is just that digging a tunnel under a mountain is much easier than making a mountain out of concrete.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 38 points 1 week ago (22 children)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] muntedcrocodile@hilariouschaos.com 38 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Giving the yield strength in psi is the most pointless thing ever. Every single engineer would use metric Pa so its clearly a conversion for the average american idiot but the average American idiot has no idea what yield strength is.

[–] slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org 22 points 1 week ago

We dropped a big boom worth 120000 hamburgers and the explosion was many football fields big. Salute to the brave troops.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (13 children)

From this article it sounds very likely that the bunker buster attack failed.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›