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.

So I did not read the article because of a paywall I'm too lazy to circumvent right now

But from OP's summary, the main technology they're talking about is concrete reinforced with steel or other fibers.

And that's definitely more advanced than "pyramid age"

But it's also pretty much a direct descendant of mud brick reinforced with straw which humanity has been using since well before the pyramids. Same basic concept, different materials.

So yes and no.

I mean they usually only do about 30 damage anyways.

Source

I low key assume this means the next strike will be using tactical nukes. This is bad news folks.

Calling that pyramid age I think is a little disingenuous, they didn’t have 40,000 psi concrete back in those days.

You can't break what is already broken

Someone, somewhere, said they don't like you.

Now CRY!

Everyone likes me.

Yes....no.....maybe? I don't know. Can you repeat the question?

Except copeium.

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.

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.

You triggered a thought: what if those bunker busters carried a payload of corrosive material, something that the explosive event could deeply embed into the concrete, slowly degrading its strength - possibly until total failure?

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.

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...

Don't give any voice whatsoever to the concept that nukes might possibly be acceptably used, anywhere, anytime, for any reason.

They can try one more time but worse

Egyptians stacked blocks of stone to build the pyramids.

Roman concrete was impressively strong.

Neither of them had steel-reinforced concrete.

Neither did Gothic cathedrals, which is why they needed flying buttresses.

Reinforced concrete as we know it today is a 19th century innovation, as I understand it.

Reinforced concrete - Wikipedia

(en.wikipedia.org)

Maybe the commenter was thinking of adobe.

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.