Technology

I was suspicious of that as well, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on that subject to speak on it, so didn't include it. But I doubt any country can build that extensive of a nuclear factory in so few years.

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.

I never really got why tactical and strategic nukes are so wildly different. Aren't those words more or less synonyms?

That's why we need the Orbital Ion Cannon.

You can't break what is already broken

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

Now CRY!

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...

The greater strength is achieved by turning concrete into a composite material with the addition of steel or other fibers.

Fiber reinforcment is thousands of years old.

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.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete?wprov=sfla1

Maybe the commenter was thinking of adobe.