this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
278 points (80.8% liked)

Technology

71897 readers
4931 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.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world 199 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 37 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

There's also the fact that the majority of Iran's nuclear facilities were built before UHPC, the concrete discussed in the article, was available!

[–] Darrell_Winfield@lemmy.world 8 points 22 hours ago

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.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 7 points 13 hours ago

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.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 6 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

I thought we do know the depth of the bunkers though. And that American bombs can’t go that deep, even multiple of them

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 61 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds to me like someone is trying to justify actually using a tactical, atomic bunker buster.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 23 points 21 hours ago (12 children)

tactical

Lol, they're gonna do the strategic one next

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 46 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

I suspect the world would be safer if everyone just let Trump think he won.

[–] x00z@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

That's impossible. "Make America Great Again" is a slogan that he can only abuse as long as there are problems. If he wants to stay in power it's in his best interest to create problems. It's what fascists dictators have been doing since forever. Even if there are no problems they will point towards something and make you think it is a problem, so they can market themselves as the solution. If he would "win" he would lose his power, which is obviously the opposite of what somebody like Trump wants.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 37 points 1 day ago (3 children)
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 15 points 1 day ago (12 children)

And no bomb is irresistible.

[–] sundray@lemmus.org 9 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

That's why we need the Orbital Ion Cannon.

[–] mysticpickle@lemmy.ca 7 points 23 hours ago (2 children)
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 7 points 22 hours ago

I did NOD see that coming.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

Except copeium.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago

You can't break what is already broken

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

Now CRY!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 36 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

That concrete really isn't new and really isn't that special. There's a reason they built it under a mountain - because the mountain does what concrete can't.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 10 points 13 hours ago

It is not that it can do what concrete cannot. It is just that digging a tunnel under a mountain is much easier than making a mountain out of concrete.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (6 children)

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

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 19 points 1 day 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 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 day ago

They can try one more time but worse

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I mean they usually only do about 30 damage anyways.

Source

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Paradox@lemdro.id 9 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

The article is 3 years old

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 8 points 1 day 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 day 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] paraphrand@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

Impressive.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Basically they used pyramid age tech to outplay billions of dollars worth of weapons tech.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Hardly. Did you read the article?

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

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

[–] Bonus@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Vanilla_PuddinFudge@infosec.pub 11 points 6 hours ago

"no, these missiles only bust the bunkers we tested them on."

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago (6 children)

They mean mixing in steel dust or nylon hair?

Hard to believe this is a recent enough thought.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 16 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

I doubt it's a recent thought, knowing civil engineers, they're absolute perverts when it comes to concrete.

[–] Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago (6 children)

IIRC this type of thing isn't new - there was research into the possibility of making ships out of ice mixed with sawdust in WWII.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 hours ago

It also wasn’t and isn’t that crazy of an idea.

It’s strong AF, buoyant, and you can repair it at sea using the ocean around you.

You just need a reliable way to keep it cool.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] AJ1@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

I sure would like to read this article, it seems fascinating, but it's paywalled.

load more comments
view more: next ›