×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
1

Why wouldn't I ran just put reactive armor on the side of the mountain where their bonkers are to stop any bunker buster missile just like tanks do?

submitted by Crackinjokes to technology 7 hoursJun 18, 2025 10:27:18 ago (+1/-0)     (technology)

If you don't know what reactive armor is it's basically explosive that is strapped to the side of a tank so that when a missile that's going to hit the tank and would normally penetrate metal armor hits the reactive armor the explosion from the reactive armor explodes the missile before it gets to penetrate the armor.

So everybody's talking about this big bunker buster bomb that we the US has that only we can apparently drop because it's so heavy and it can penetrate 200 ft of Earth and I'm thinking to myself why the hell wouldn't they Iranians just put explosives on the side of the mountain so that the explosions blow the bunker buster bomb to bits long before it has any chance to penetrate the Earth at all

Just like a tank



3 comments block

Bunker busters are pretty tough so that they can penetrate 50-200ft and still function. Reactive armor wouldn’t scratch them. The GBU-57 MOP bomb is the only munition that can penetrate that deep and only the B-2 can carry them. The Fordow nuclear centrifuge facility in Iran is too deep. It’s been suggested that multiple low yield nuclear warheads would be necessary to destroy it. Bunker busters were ruled out.