Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-23-2025

Connecting the conflict to Russia…

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia-putin-israel-iran-trump-4c89855e?st=dDCNNV&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

*sad trombone* Russia yet again leaves its “allies” high and dry when push comes to shove.

Quote: “A common complaint in Iran is that China and Russia, rather than being true friends, exploit Iran’s isolation to get cheap natural resources while selling Iran second-rate military hardware at inflated prices, sometimes never even delivering the promised equipment,” said Tino Sanandaji, a Swedish-Iranian researcher with the Stockholm School of Economics.

Of course our own commitment to allies has come under question.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 06-24-2025

We declare a ceasefire has taken place then we decry actions of Israel which violate the theoretical cease fire.  I have to wonder whether there really was one, or whether the administration's declaration that one existed made it true with no input from the combatants.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 06-24-2025

Am I mistaken or didn't Iran and Israel both violate the ceasefire? 

Doesn't sound like much of a ceasefire.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 06-24-2025

(06-24-2025, 10:46 AM)Mick Wrote:  Am I mistaken or didn't Iran and Israel both violate the ceasefire? 

Doesn't sound like much of a ceasefire.

You are correct, apparently the combatants didn't get the note that there was a cease fire ordered.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-24-2025

https://maritime-executive.com/article/limited-use-of-diego-garcia-reflects-its-diminished-value-after-handover

This article may contain the reasons the US used the west to east route into Iran. The operational security situation in Diego-Garcia seems to be massively degraded, although a Chinese AGI sitting in international waters can note aircraft arrivals and departures fairly accurately in real time.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-24-2025

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckglxwp5x03o

So basically we made a big show of force to not set back the nuclear program by more than a few months and Iran pretended to strike us back and now there is a cease fire that more or less leaves the status quo ante.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-24-2025

(06-24-2025, 08:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckglxwp5x03o

So basically we made a big show of force to not set back the nuclear program by more than a few months and Iran pretended to strike us back and now there is a cease fire that more or less leaves the status quo ante.

BC

I don't think it restores the status quo ante. First, nobody actually knows how much damage was done to the Iranian nuclear program, probably not even the Iranians at this point. DIA estimates have been wildly wrong (in both directions) quite often in the past. Of course Trumps initial bluster was nonsense, but we do not yet have "ground truth" on the impact of both the material and human damage upon the Iranian program.
 
It is also not yet clear whether Iran still believes attempting to get nuclear weapons is a net positive. Iran has been sanctioned by the US for trying. That was bad, but up until now nobody ever attacked Iran to prevent them from doing so. Both Israel and the US have now done exactly that. That is a "big deal". The cost of playing the nuclear game just went way up. Worse still, the US, who up until now hadn't struck an offensive military blow against the Iran has now done so. There is every reason to believe that the US will do it again if it believes Iran is approaching a nuclear capability.
 
The cease fire fails to resolve the underlying causes of the war. Iran's conduct has been unacceptable to both the US and Israel for quite some time, but the calculus was that a military solution would not work. The calculus changed when Iran became vulnerable. If Iran's conduct isn't altered there is no reason to believe the cease fire can persist. It may just be the mandatory media time-out before the "game" begins again.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 06-25-2025

(06-24-2025, 09:18 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(06-24-2025, 08:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckglxwp5x03o

So basically we made a big show of force to not set back the nuclear program by more than a few months and Iran pretended to strike us back and now there is a cease fire that more or less leaves the status quo ante.

BC

I don't think it restores the status quo ante. First, nobody actually knows how much damage was done to the Iranian nuclear program, probably not even the Iranians at this point. DIA estimates have been wildly wrong (in both directions) quite often in the past. Of course Trumps initial bluster was nonsense, but we do not yet have "ground truth" on the impact of both the material and human damage upon the Iranian program.
 
It is also not yet clear whether Iran still believes attempting to get nuclear weapons is a net positive. Iran has been sanctioned by the US for trying. That was bad, but up until now nobody ever attacked Iran to prevent them from doing so. Both Israel and the US have now done exactly that. That is a "big deal". The cost of playing the nuclear game just went way up. Worse still, the US, who up until now hadn't struck an offensive military blow against the Iran has now done so. There is every reason to believe that the US will do it again if it believes Iran is approaching a nuclear capability.
 
The cease fire fails to resolve the underlying causes of the war. Iran's conduct has been unacceptable to both the US and Israel for quite some time, but the calculus was that a military solution would not work. The calculus changed when Iran became vulnerable. If Iran's conduct isn't altered there is no reason to believe the cease fire can persist. It may just be the mandatory media time-out before the "game" begins again.

I think this is a problem where the can has been kicked down the road for years because no one wanted to deal with it long term. Now the problem has grown to being almost too hard to even manage. For some time Israel supported Qatari payments to Hamas, then it all blew up. 

The problem is extremely complex and has existed for years in various forms. So is there any solution to the current problem without one of the two sides giving up?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - cctop - 06-25-2025

(06-24-2025, 09:18 PM)Goose Wrote:  That was bad, but up until now nobody ever attacked Iran to prevent them from doing so. Both Israel and the US have now done exactly that. That is a "big deal". The cost of playing the nuclear game just went way up.

I would count the Stuxnet cyberattack as an attack, but I get that you're talking physical bombs.

(BTW thank you for this continued thread. I've learned more from it than any other news source.)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-25-2025

(06-25-2025, 09:48 AM)GK3 Wrote:  The problem is extremely complex and has existed for years in various forms. So is there any solution to the current problem without one of the two sides giving up?

I don't think there is any such solution. The real problem isn't that Iran wants to obtain nuclear weapons. The real problem is that Iran is dedicated to the idea Israel has no "right" to exist and must be destroyed by any means necessary. Nuclear weapons are a very important tool in accomplishing that destruction, but is only one tool of many Iran has used and will use in the future. Until Iran abandons that goal "for real" the problem will continue to exist.

---

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-858937

Not an exactly "neutral" source, but I think it gives a more balanced view of the current state of the Iranian nuclear program. The fact is nobody knows. It is however more than a little disturbing that the US administration and to some degree the Netanyahu administration are asserting without proof that the Iranian program is "totally destroyed". Intelligence data is often ambiguous and limited in its coverage. There are recent examples of US administrations sorting through the information and selecting only that which supported its prejudices as "valid". It may be that is being carried to new heights. There is an "old saying" that each president gets the CIA director it wants but it usually takes a minimum of two years training.
 
Historically Israel and the Mossad have been more objective in their evaluations with a very few spectacular exceptions. Politics and confirmation bias does play in Israel too, just not as much. My current concern is that Netanyahu is well aware that his public will not accept an end to this conflict with Iran still possessing the ability to obtain a nuclear weapon relatively "soon", soon meaning in about the next 5 years minimum. This is a "one of a kind" opportunity for Israel that they elected to exploit. Their public expects them to deliver results to justify the risks and destruction involved. Failing that, Netanyahu's government will IMO certainly fall. Aggressive public relations asserting "adequate" destruction therefore may be forthcoming despite no real supporting facts.

Hopefully we will all get some insight into Iran's thinking going forward during the negotiations next week. If Iran still demands the right to enrich uranium I can't imagine Israel will continue with a cease fire. In theory the US supports the idea that enrichment should not be allowed, but we shall see. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2025/06/25/trump-says-us-iran-talks-will-resume-next-week-live-updates/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 06-25-2025

(06-25-2025, 11:51 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(06-25-2025, 09:48 AM)GK3 Wrote:  The problem is extremely complex and has existed for years in various forms. So is there any solution to the current problem without one of the two sides giving up?

I don't think there is any such solution. The real problem isn't that Iran wants to obtain nuclear weapons. The real problem is that Iran is dedicated to the idea Israel has no "right" to exist and must be destroyed by any means necessary. Nuclear weapons are a very important tool in accomplishing that destruction, but is only one tool of many Iran has used and will use in the future. Until Iran abandons that goal "for real" the problem will continue to exist.

---

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-858937

Not an exactly "neutral" source, but I think it gives a more balanced view of the current state of the Iranian nuclear program. The fact is nobody knows. It is however more than a little disturbing that the US administration and to some degree the Netanyahu administration are asserting without proof that the Iranian program is "totally destroyed". Intelligence data is often ambiguous and limited in its coverage. There are recent examples of US administrations sorting through the information and selecting only that which supported its prejudices as "valid". It may be that is being carried to new heights. There is an "old saying" that each president gets the CIA director it wants but it usually takes a minimum of two years training.
 
Historically Israel and the Mossad have been more objective in their evaluations with a very few spectacular exceptions. Politics and confirmation bias does play in Israel too, just not as much. My current concern is that Netanyahu is well aware that his public will not accept an end to this conflict with Iran still possessing the ability to obtain a nuclear weapon relatively "soon", soon meaning in about the next 5 years minimum. This is a "one of a kind" opportunity for Israel that they elected to exploit. Their public expects them to deliver results to justify the risks and destruction involved. Failing that, Netanyahu's government will IMO certainly fall. Aggressive public relations asserting "adequate" destruction therefore may be forthcoming despite no real supporting facts.

Hopefully we will all get some insight into Iran's thinking going forward during the negotiations next week. If Iran still demands the right to enrich uranium I can't imagine Israel will continue with a cease fire. In theory the US supports the idea that enrichment should not be allowed, but we shall see. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharyfolk/2025/06/25/trump-says-us-iran-talks-will-resume-next-week-live-updates/

I agree, any so-called solution would very ephemeral

I offer this article from NPR on the bombs we dropped and their damage. I always felt that the earth overlying the target would always limit the penetration of the bomb. Finally I found some discussion and actual math regarding this. Worth a read.
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/25/nx-s1-5444307/did-america-bunker-busting-bombs-fail-reach-iran-nuclear-target

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-25-2025

(06-25-2025, 12:59 PM)GK3 Wrote:  I offer this article from NPR on the bombs we dropped and their damage. I always felt that the earth overlying the target would always limit the penetration of the bomb. Finally I found some discussion and actual math regarding this. Worth a read.
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/25/nx-s1-5444307/did-america-bunker-busting-bombs-fail-reach-iran-nuclear-target

Good link. BC had a good one as well. As the article states, the composition of the earth above the target has a big effect on how deep the bomb will penetrate. I am guessing the USAF planners were well aware of the problem. What they may not know is the exact composition of the mountain. It would appear that even best case the maximum penetration depth of 60 meters is well short of the known depth of the operational "cave". Targeting the ventilation shafts may have dramatically increased the penetration depth, depending on their dimensions and whether there are right-angle path changes acting as anti-blast baffles in the ventilation shaft path. If the USAF actually had drawings of the site these questions may have answers. If they didn't, it is a lot of guesswork.
 
Another factor that has not been considered is that the Iranians created a large cave inside the mountain. While the shock wave from a blast may not travel well in solid rock, when such a wave hits the air interface of a cave the ceiling of the cave may spall off considerable material or even collapse. That could indeed destroy or damage what is inside the cave. The mining method called "block caving" relies on this progressive ceiling collapse. Multi-level mines have also come to grief due to shock waves from one tunnel blast collapsing a different another tunnel that was quite distant from blast. The only way to know how much damage was done it to actually look, and nobody can do that right now.
 
IMO if the question of how much damage was done actually matters, the whole evolution has been a failure. If Iran is willing to give up any aspirations of enrichment of uranium, the damage doesn't matter. If they aren't, the "problem" may be delayed but it is not removed.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 06-25-2025

(06-25-2025, 12:59 PM)GK3 Wrote:  I offer this article from NPR on the bombs we dropped and their damage. I always felt that the earth overlying the target would always limit the penetration of the bomb. Finally I found some discussion and actual math regarding this. Worth a read.
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/25/nx-s1-5444307/did-america-bunker-busting-bombs-fail-reach-iran-nuclear-target

If people didn't read this article, here are the highlights

Quote:When I ran the calculations, using a key equation from that study, I found out that the GBU-57 could go up to 80 meters (262 feet) underground if it was dropped in silty clay.

In medium-strength rock, things looked far different. The GBU-57 could only go around 7.9 meters (about 25 feet) beneath the earth — far short of the 60 meters claimed by the infographics.

Who would build their prize facility under silty clay?  Wikipedia indicates the Cheyenne Mountain Complex is 2000' under granite.

Per an ArcGIS map, Fordo and Natanz are in Tertiary Volcanics (But hey, I had real difficulty on a geology field trip identifying the large-grained, crumbling rock in Griffith Park (Los Angeles).  It was nothing like what we had back in Texas!)

What belief do we have in the claims of the penetration depth of this bomb?  We've taken the penetration depth at face value, but what is the basis of that claim?

(I'd think the propagation of the shock wave would be stronger in dense, solid rock, and weaker in weaker rock. What is wanted is a strong shockwave at the ceiling of the chambers. So maybe less penetration may not mean a weaker shock wave.)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 06-25-2025

(06-25-2025, 04:48 PM)M T Wrote:  

(06-25-2025, 12:59 PM)GK3 Wrote:  I offer this article from NPR on the bombs we dropped and their damage. I always felt that the earth overlying the target would always limit the penetration of the bomb. Finally I found some discussion and actual math regarding this. Worth a read.
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/25/nx-s1-5444307/did-america-bunker-busting-bombs-fail-reach-iran-nuclear-target

If people didn't read this article, here are the highlights

Quote:When I ran the calculations, using a key equation from that study, I found out that the GBU-57 could go up to 80 meters (262 feet) underground if it was dropped in silty clay.

In medium-strength rock, things looked far different. The GBU-57 could only go around 7.9 meters (about 25 feet) beneath the earth — far short of the 60 meters claimed by the infographics.

Who would build their prize facility under silty clay?  Wikipedia indicates the Cheyenne Mountain Complex is 2000' under granite.

Per an ArcGIS map, Fordo and Natanz are in Tertiary Volcanics (But hey, I had real difficulty on a geology field trip identifying the large-grained, crumbling rock in Griffith Park (Los Angeles).  It was nothing like what we had back in Texas!)

What belief do we have in the claims of the penetration depth of this bomb?  We've taken the penetration depth at face value, but what is the basis of that claim?

(I'd think the propagation of the shock wave would be stronger in dense, solid rock, and weaker in weaker rock.  What is wanted is a strong shockwave at the ceiling of the chambers.  So maybe less penetration may not mean a weaker shock wave.)

Agreed.  I have forgotten the geologic terms given to the area around Fordo but it isn't granite and definitely not silty clay.  We built in Cheyenne mountain for obvious reasons.  The 2000 ft of granite rock is pretty tough to break through and the entrances are not easily hit either.  One reference I read said the area around Fordo was Limestone and Dolostone, whatever that is. Limestone is rock, but it isn't granite.  I have no clue how strong Dolostone is.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-25-2025

(06-25-2025, 09:48 AM)GK3 Wrote:  I think this is a problem where the can has been kicked down the road for years because no one wanted to deal with it long term. Now the problem has grown to being almost too hard to even manage. For some time Israel supported Qatari payments to Hamas, then it all blew up. 

The problem is extremely complex and has existed for years in various forms. So is there any solution to the current problem without one of the two sides giving up?

In some ways, ever since the first successful nuclear test, the genie has been out of the bottle.  In some ways, it is remarkable that the technology has not spread further in the ensuing 80 years (next month will mark the 80th anniversary from trinity, the first atomic weapon test).

Probably the only way to be absolutely sure that Iran doesn’t develop a nuclear weapon would be a ground invasion, and systematic dismantlement of every part of the nuclear program.  While I would never say never, I would like to think that nobody has any sort of appetite for what that would entail.

Second best would be a long term negotiated treaty with verifiable monitoring of the program.  Ironically, we had that with the JCPOA.  No, it didn’t forever restrict Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but neither did this attack, and if Iran had even a moderate setback, its best strategy is probably to find a way to sprint to a weapon as quickly as possible and hope that it completes it before another attack.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 06-25-2025

The real test of the ceasefire will come later, when a very juicy target presents itself. 

No doubt Israel has hit many of what it deemed as high value targets, then they worked down the list. Not that there weren't good targets left, but surely they were working down the priority list. As others have pointed out, the operational pace was unsustainable for a prolonged period in any case. 

The question is what happens when Israel gets intel on where the HEU went; or where the next missle factory gets established, and so on. The political cost of restarting a conflict is higher then continuing one, which will factor into the calculus.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 06-25-2025

(06-25-2025, 05:56 PM)GK3 Wrote:  One reference I read said the area around Fordo was Limestone and Dolostone, whatever that is. Limestone is rock, but it isn't granite.  I have no clue how strong Dolostone is.

Hmmm... Limestone and dolomite are sedimentary rocks, which doesn't jive with the geologic map indicating volcanic rocks.

In trying to research this, I ran into a disinformation site (with "lies" in its name) that referenced a non-existent journal and an article name (that doesn't show in Google anywhere but that page) as the source of the kind of rocks.  Beware....

I did run into a page (with "weather" in its name) that makes the claim of these rocks and suggests that the energy absorption of the sedimentary rocks, with earthquake-fractured strata, would protect the Fordo site.  Maybe that's a legit page from the region, but I'm not sure. (The claimed date of publication is before the bombing, but I have no way of validating that.)

Ah, here's a reference I believe may be legit, indicating that a former Israeli official said that it was under limestone.

Here's a reference on crater formation in sedimentary rocks vs igneous rocks, which supports the fact that sedimentary rocks absorb a shock wave better.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-26-2025

https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-supreme-leader-ali-khamenei-102534072.html

Iran is talking like somebody who is not willing to concede anything. Probably not a good start for a negotiation. Of course tough talk for domestic consumption does not necessarily reflect what Iran is willing to do, but it isn't a good start. The "slap in the face" statement was obviously an attempt to explain Iran not meaningfully retaliating against the US.
 
I can easily see this cease-fire going pear-shaped. It is unclear (at least to me) what the US "bottom line" is. Will the administration allow a settlement that includes Iran having a nuclear enrichment program inside Iran? If so, how is that not the status quo ante and why did we bomb Iran (without Congressional concurrence being sought)? If not, what will the US do to force Iran to change that stance?
 
The concomitant question is will Israel accept a settlement that allows enrichment? If not and Israel resumes the war (IMO a very probable response) what will the administration do? We have good reason to believe that scenario played out at the start of this war, where Israel acted unilaterally in the belief they could drag the US along. Israel appears to have been correct the first time. What will happen the second time?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-26-2025

A very informative article on FPV drones and their limitations, from a former drone pilot who volunteered with the Ukrainian armed forces.

https://warontherocks.com/2025/06/i-fought-in-ukraine-and-heres-why-fpv-drones-kind-of-suck/

Quote:In 2024 and 2025, I served for six months as an international volunteer on a first-person view attack drone team in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. My team was deployed in the Donbas region, in one of the hottest sectors of the front. When I joined the team, I was excited to work with a cutting-edge tool. By the end of my deployment, I was a bit disillusioned. Let me tell you why.
.........
All that said, if a member of a NATO military were hypothetically to ask me whether NATO countries should acquire first-person view drone capabilities, based on my experience and given the current state of the technology, I would probably say no, whether they are radio-controlled or fiber-optic. The vast majority of first-person view drone missions can be completed more cheaply, effectively, or reliably by other assets. Furthermore, other authors have noted that drones still do not come close to matching the effects that can be achieved by massed artillery fires. Additionally, experts on artillery systems consistently note the greater reliability and range of artillery.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 06-26-2025

(06-26-2025, 02:01 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  A very informative article on FPV drones and their limitations, from a former drone pilot who volunteered with the Ukrainian armed forces.

https://warontherocks.com/2025/06/i-fought-in-ukraine-and-heres-why-fpv-drones-kind-of-suck/

Quote:In 2024 and 2025, I served for six months as an international volunteer on a first-person view attack drone team in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. My team was deployed in the Donbas region, in one of the hottest sectors of the front. When I joined the team, I was excited to work with a cutting-edge tool. By the end of my deployment, I was a bit disillusioned. Let me tell you why.
.........
All that said, if a member of a NATO military were hypothetically to ask me whether NATO countries should acquire first-person view drone capabilities, based on my experience and given the current state of the technology, I would probably say no, whether they are radio-controlled or fiber-optic. The vast majority of first-person view drone missions can be completed more cheaply, effectively, or reliably by other assets. Furthermore, other authors have noted that drones still do not come close to matching the effects that can be achieved by massed artillery fires. Additionally, experts on artillery systems consistently note the greater reliability and range of artillery.

I have to wonder about the accuracy of his opinions.  I agree that currently artillery has more range but the instant they fire counter battery radars can detect their launch points and launch counter battery attacks.  This means the artillery and rocket launchers are forced to move after firing and make themselves good targets.  

but there is more

For those who may have a serious interest in this subject, here is a more comprehensive view of this issue and well worth the read.
https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/05/05/beyond-the-hype-why-drones-cannot-replace-artillery/#:~:text=A%20careful%20and%20historically%20informed,but%20they%20are%20not%2C%20and

And for those who have a serious interest in this, the author of the above article has a podcast worth checking out: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/lessons-lost-in-time/id1762473030

---