this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
290 points (80.6% liked)

Technology

72497 readers
4665 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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (6 children)

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

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And I read that the US used more than half of its stock of these bunker-buster bombs in this attack, the largest conventional bunker-busters in existence. So they can't simply try again.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 26 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

By your math, they absolutely can simply try again: one more time.

By my math, the bunker-buster bomb makers just got a big new contract.

something something DOGE of WAR something...

[–] match@pawb.social 12 points 1 week ago

They can try one more time but worse

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I mean they usually only do about 30 damage anyways.

Source

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

So Iran knew EXACTLY how strong they needed to make their defenses!
Pretty stupid of the American military to give that info to a game developer, that would obviously use it.

[–] dalekcaan@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I love how unhinged random fan wikis sound without context. Here for instance: Bunker Buster, see also: Concrete Donkey and Buffalo of Lies

[–] JustinTheGM@ttrpg.network 2 points 1 week ago

I hadn't clicked the link yet, but Concrete Donkey told me what it was immediately

[–] Paradox@lemdro.id 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But the information still seems valid.

[–] 3abas@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

It's confirming your bias so you like it...

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 9 points 1 week ago

My guess: that bunker buster attack was twice as successful as the missile attack on the the airfield in Qatar.

2 x 0 = 0.

Now accepting bets on when we will find out that Trump had a secret call with Ali Khamenei where they negotiated the whole thing ahead of time, thus explaining the movement of the Uranium out of the facility, the movement of our servicemen out of the airbase, etc. etc.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 7 points 1 week ago

Why? The kinds of UHPC being discussed in the article weren't available even in the United States until the year 2000 but most of Iran's nuclear facilities were built between 1974 and 2005. Even their primary enrichment facility in Fordow, which was struck with MOPs, was started no earlier than the mid-2000s as it was still unfinished in 2009.

Basically the majority of Iran's facilities, even their major ones, are too old to have the kind of concrete being discussed in the article.

[–] Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

That's what they want you to think, but we have no evidence to either direction. And I doubt we will ever have a definitive answer.