You know, Herman, I was looking at some of the satellite imagery from the last few months, and it’s striking how much the physical landscape of conflict has changed. We talk about cyber warfare and drones all the time, but there is still this incredibly visceral, heavy-metal side to modern war that feels almost like something out of a different era. It’s February twenty twenty-six, and we’re still processing the sheer physical impact of what happened last summer.
It really does feel like a throwback to the mid-twentieth century, but with a twenty-first-century brain guiding it. It’s that intersection of high-tech precision and just raw, overwhelming mass. Herman Poppleberry here, by the way. And you’re right, Corn. The scale of the hardware we’re seeing deployed now is just hard to wrap your head around without some serious context. We’ve spent years talking about bits and bytes, but when fourteen thousand kilograms of hardened steel hits a mountain, the conversation shifts back to physics and geology very quickly.
Exactly. And that’s actually what Daniel’s prompt is about today. He wants us to dig into the use of the G-B-U fifty-seven A-slash-B Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or the MOP, specifically in the context of the conflict between Israel and Iran. This fourteen thousand kilogram monster was used back in June twenty twenty-five against the Fordow and Natanz facilities, and Daniel has some really pointed questions about why these facilities can’t just be built deeper and what the actual impact of a weapon that size looks like.
It’s a fascinating topic because the MOP is essentially the ultimate answer to the problem of deeply buried targets. For decades, the strategy for protecting sensitive military or scientific assets was simple: just put more dirt and concrete between you and the surface. But the MOP was designed specifically to break that logic. When you’re talking about a bomb that weighs thirty thousand pounds, or fourteen thousand kilograms, you’re not just talking about an explosion. You’re talking about a massive kinetic spear.
Right, and I think that’s a good place to start. Daniel asked if facilities can simply be built deeper to evade these munitions. On the surface, it seems like a logical arms race, right? If they can hit sixty meters deep, you build at eighty meters. If they hit eighty, you go to a hundred. But I suspect the engineering reality is a lot more complicated than just digging a deeper hole.
It’s significantly more complicated. First, you have to look at how the MOP actually works. It isn’t just a big bomb that hits the ground and goes bang. It’s a precision-guided, hardened steel cylinder. Most of that fourteen thousand kilograms isn’t actually explosive material; it’s the casing. The casing is made of a specialized steel alloy called A-F fourteen-ten, which is incredibly tough and heat-resistant. The explosive payload is only about five thousand three hundred pounds, or roughly two thousand four hundred kilograms. The rest is high-density metallurgical engineering designed to survive the impact with reinforced concrete or solid rock at supersonic speeds.
So it’s basically a massive lawn dart made of specialized steel.
Exactly. And when it hits, it uses that incredible momentum to burrow. Now, to Daniel’s question about building deeper: yes, theoretically, you could try to go deeper than the sixty-meter penetration depth the MOP is rated for. But think about what that requires. You’re talking about the Fordow facility, which is already built into a mountain. To go deeper, you’re dealing with immense geological pressure. You need massive life-support systems, ventilation, and power infrastructure that all have to connect back to the surface eventually.
And those connections are the Achilles' heel, aren't they? You can have the most secure lab in the world two hundred meters down, but if your air intake or your elevator shafts are collapsed by a MOP strike at the entrance, the facility is effectively neutralized anyway.
Precisely. This is what military planners call functional defeat. You don’t necessarily have to vaporize the centrifuges or the scientists to stop the work. If you collapse the tunnels, sever the fiber optic cables, and destroy the cooling systems, that facility is a tomb. And the MOP is incredibly good at creating that kind of structural failure. Also, we have to talk about the physics of the shockwave. Even if the bomb doesn’t physically reach the room where the scientific activity is happening, the kinetic energy of thirty thousand pounds hitting the rock at high speed creates a massive seismic event.
That leads perfectly into Daniel’s second point: why is it so difficult to protect scientific activity from these munitions? I mean, if you’re doing high-precision work, like uranium enrichment with centrifuges, I imagine vibration is your worst enemy.
Oh, it’s a nightmare. Think about a gas centrifuge. These things are spinning at tens of thousands of revolutions per minute. The tolerances are microscopic. They are held in place by magnetic bearings or high-precision mechanical bearings. If the ground shakes even slightly more than the dampening systems can handle, the rotors can touch the casing. When that happens at those speeds, the centrifuge essentially explodes. It’s called a crash, and it can lead to a domino effect where one failing centrifuge sends shrapnel into the ones next to it.
So, even a near-miss with a MOP, where the bomb burrows fifty meters away but sends a massive shockwave through the granite, could essentially wipe out a whole hall of centrifuges without a single piece of shrapnel ever touching them.
Exactly. And it’s not just the centrifuges. Scientific activity requires extremely stable environments. Think about clean rooms, specialized glasswork, or sensitive chemical processes. You can’t just put those in a bouncy castle. You have to bolt them to the floor. And when the floor becomes part of a massive acoustic wave generated by a fourteen-ton impact, the engineering required to isolate that equipment becomes nearly impossible at certain depths. You’d need massive shock-absorption systems that would take up as much space as the equipment itself.
It’s interesting to think about the trade-offs. The deeper you go to hide from the physical impact, the harder it becomes to manage the environment and the more vulnerable you are to having your life-support lines cut. It feels like a losing game once your adversary has a weapon that can reliably reach those depths.
It really is. And let’s put that weight into context, because Daniel asked about how this fourteen thousand kilogram payload compares to more routine aircraft missions. This is where the numbers get truly staggering. If you look at a standard fighter jet, like an F-sixteen or an F-thirty-five, their typical heavy-duty bomb is the G-B-U thirty-one Joint Direct Attack Munition. That’s a two-thousand-pound bomb, or about nine hundred kilograms.
So, one MOP is equivalent to fifteen of the heaviest bombs a standard fighter would usually carry?
Roughly, yeah. But it’s even more lopsided than that. An F-sixteen can carry maybe two of those two-thousand-pound bombs on a typical long-range mission. To deliver the weight of a single MOP, you’d need a whole squadron of fighters. But here’s the kicker: those fifteen smaller bombs wouldn’t do what one MOP does. You can’t just drop fifteen two-thousand-pound bombs on the same spot and expect them to penetrate sixty meters of rock. They’ll just make a big, shallow crater.
Right, because they don’t have the sectional density. They aren’t designed to burrow; they’re designed to blast. It’s the difference between being hit by fifteen tennis balls and being hit by one lead pipe. The total weight might be the same, but the effect is completely different.
That’s a great analogy. And because the MOP is so heavy, only two planes in the American arsenal can even carry it: the B-two Spirit and the newer B-twenty-one Raider. During the June twenty twenty-five strikes, we saw the B-twenty-one in action for one of its first major high-stakes sorties. Each B-two or B-twenty-one can carry two MOPs. Think about that. A billion-dollar stealth bomber, the most sophisticated aircraft ever built, and its entire mission is just to carry two of these things. That tells you everything you need to know about how specialized and valuable this capability is.
It’s a huge logistical tail, too. You aren’t just flying a bomber; you’re flying tankers, electronic warfare support, and probably some high-altitude reconnaissance to confirm the hits. All of that for just a few specific points on a map. It’s the ultimate surgical strike, just with a very, very large scalpel.
And the June twenty twenty-five strikes were actually the first time the MOP was used in real combat. Before that, it was all tests at the White Sands Missile Range. Daniel asked about the lessons learned from that first combat use. One of the big ones was the importance of intelligence-driven targeting. You have to know exactly where the most vulnerable geological points are. You’re not just aiming for a building; you’re aiming for a specific vein of rock or a known structural weakness in the underground architecture.
I remember reading some analysis after those strikes that suggested the U.S. and Israel had been using advanced ground-penetrating radar and even muon tomography to map those facilities for years. If you’re going to drop a thirty-thousand-pound bomb, you want to make sure it’s hitting the exact spot where the ceiling of the bunker is thinnest or where the rock is the most brittle.
Absolutely. Another lesson was the psychological impact. For a long time, the Iranian leadership felt that Fordow was invulnerable. It was their ultimate insurance policy because it was buried so deep under a mountain. When the MOPs actually hit and caused significant internal damage, it completely changed the diplomatic and strategic calculus. It proved that there is no such thing as an impenetrable fortress in the age of precision-guided kinetic penetrators.
It’s a grim realization. It essentially says that if someone wants to reach you and they have the resources of a superpower, they will. Now, Daniel also asked about international treaties. Are there any laws or agreements that govern the use of something like a bunker buster? It feels like we’re getting into a gray area of conventional versus non-conventional effects.
It’s an interesting legal space. There is no specific treaty that bans bunker busters or large-scale conventional munitions. They aren’t classified as weapons of mass destruction because they don’t use nuclear, chemical, or biological agents. However, they are subject to the standard laws of armed conflict, specifically the principles of distinction and proportionality.
Meaning you can’t just drop a MOP on a bunker that’s located directly under a crowded civilian hospital.
Exactly. The main legal concern with weapons like the MOP is the collateral damage caused by the massive seismic shock. If you use it in an urban area to hit a command bunker, you might collapse every civilian building within a five-block radius just from the ground shaking. That’s where the legal challenges come in. But in the case of Fordow or Natanz, which are relatively isolated, those concerns are minimized. There’s also the Environmental Modification Convention, or E-N-M-O-D, which prohibits the military use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects. Some have argued that massive earth-penetrating bombs could fall under this, but so far, that hasn't gained much legal traction.
It seems like as long as the target is a legitimate military or strategic asset and the civilian risk is managed, these are treated just like any other bomb, just scaled up to an extreme degree.
Precisely. And that brings us to Daniel’s last question: what other targets was the MOP designed for? We always talk about it in the context of Iran’s nuclear program, but Boeing and the Air Force didn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars just for two facilities.
I’d imagine command and control is high on that list. If a country expects a nuclear war, they’re going to put their leadership in deep, hardened bunkers. The MOP is essentially the conventional way to take out a target that previously would have required a low-yield nuclear strike to destroy.
That’s the key phrase right there: nuclear weapon replacement. The MOP was designed to give the U.S. president a non-nuclear option for targets that are otherwise invulnerable. Think about the deep bunkers in North Korea, or the massive underground complexes in Russia like Mount Yamantau. These are places designed to survive a direct nuclear hit. The MOP offers a way to neutralize them without the radioactive fallout and the global political catastrophe of using a nuke.
It’s also about chemical and biological weapons storage. If you have a stockpile of nerve agent buried deep underground, you don’t want to just blow it up and have it leak into the atmosphere. You want to collapse the entire facility on top of itself, essentially entombing the agents under millions of tons of rock. The MOP is perfect for that kind of structural burial.
And let’s not forget the psychological aspect of leadership targeting. Knowing that your secret underground command center isn’t actually safe is a massive deterrent. It forces an adversary to stay mobile, which makes them easier to track and harder to maintain consistent command.
It really changes the nature of what safety means for a high-value target. It used to be that you could hide behind thickness. Now, you have to hide behind ambiguity and mobility. If they find you, the thickness doesn't matter anymore.
That’s the shift. We’ve moved from an era of fortification to an era of obfuscation. If your location is known to within a few meters, no amount of concrete is going to save you from thirty thousand pounds of hardened steel falling from the sky.
It’s a sobering thought, especially when you consider that we’re already seeing the next generation of these things. People are talking about hypersonic versions that use even more kinetic energy to go even deeper.
Oh, the physics of that are terrifying. If you take that same fourteen thousand kilogram mass and move it from supersonic to hypersonic speeds, the penetration depth doesn't just increase linearly; it’s exponential. We might be looking at a future where even a hundred meters of rock isn't enough.
Well, on that cheery note, I think we’ve given Daniel a pretty deep dive into the world of massive ordnance. It’s one of those topics that reminds you just how much engineering goes into the parts of conflict we rarely see.
It really does. It’s a hidden arms race happening beneath our feet.
If you’ve been enjoying these deep dives into the weirder and more intense sides of modern technology and conflict, we’d really appreciate it if you could leave us a review on your podcast app. It genuinely helps other people find the show.
Yeah, it makes a huge difference. And if you have your own prompts or questions, you can always reach us at show at my weird prompts dot com or through the contact form on our website, my weird prompts dot com.
You can find all our past episodes there too, including the ones we’ve done on the broader context of the Middle East conflict. We’re on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and pretty much everywhere else you listen.
Thanks for joining us today. This has been My Weird Prompts.
See you next time.
Goodbye.
