There's nothing legitimate about anything in this statement.

You think the fact that they got nothing off says more about their lack of ability than it does about our ability? Do you know what pre-emptive HARM strikes are, why they exist, or what will happen if they turn their radars on? Do you not think that had they launched fighters, our ability to shoot them down immediately isn't more an indication of how good we are than how bad they are?

This operation was perhaps the most well-executed complex military operation utilizing multiple assets from multiple components in over 20 years. This had all the markings of Weapons School level planning and execution. Literally every asset was used for exactly the role they were designed for.

Regarding cost, Google "B-2 strike Libya 2017" and tell me what you think about the cost of that operation. They launched two B-2s to drop 108 GPS-guided JDAMs on pax out in the open in perhaps the most permissive airspace in the Middle East, all to kill less than 80 low-level enemy fighters, and then went on a full-court PR blitz bragging about it. How much did killing 80 low-level fighters with strategic bombers set back AQ's program? I literally can't think of a worse use of resources in terms both of cost as well as effectiveness in my entire career.

Whether we set that facility back days, months, or years is almost irrelevant. For the record, I am on the side of there's no way that kind of destructive firepower even simply near all those sensitive centrifuges, etc didn't set back that facility's capacity. That, combined with our ability to monitor their attempts to replace damaged equipment, has the potential to have a lasting impact.

Additionally, all of our potential adversaries are now well aware that we can operate unimpeded in well-defended airspace and you won't even know we were there. We have weapons that can reach DEEP underground, so even if we may or may not be able to get all the way to that facility, we can probably get to where you are. And, if we need to come back, we can and we will.

The only thing that sets off my BS meter is people trying to make what they think are accurate intel assessments on a complex capability based on open-source information mere days after the strike.

"They only leaked an assessment contrary to what was being said."

So it was only disinformation?

Ok, that's fair. I'm using the word more in the sense of someone being a traitor, but is it actually the crime of treason? No.

All of these people with security clearances, especially those above SECRET, signed NDA's and other documents that very explicitly laid out the potential consequences for improperly divulging protected information. The term of coverage of those agreements extends to 25-years and beyond! They don't have to test new legal theory to hold people responsible; the penalties for violating those NDA's are severe and officials would be well within their authority to simply charge them per those existing laws should investigation prove they violated the law and their signed agreements.

This phenomena of relatively lower-level individuals having delusions of grandeur and wanting to influence national level politics by divulging sensitive, protected information whether it be intelligence, tax data, etc seems to be occurring with increasing frequency. The willingness of politicians to cover for the violators and shield them from consequences as long as the divulged information helps their side is only making it worse.

Quick question - Can I log the 30+ hours round-trip as cross-country time if I never landed and just flew over the area?

Hats off to the Women and Men in blue (or green) that got to wave at Knob Knoster and Columbia (or Butler) and actually got credit for that X-C time under 61.73! ...too bad they can't log it.

Amazing respect for the men and women who supported them and the folks in the field that did the stuff that they did wherever they did it.

People flying 60-70 year old birds, maintained by people 1/4-1/2 their age, refueled the Beak. Airplanes and the people that maintain them and support them never cease to amaze me.

This is spot on. Those covering for those leaking are complicit in the problem. Leaking bad intel as fact to the media just goes to show how far people are willing to go to undermine the POTUS and this mission. These leaks seem harmless? Well they are not. At the least they embolden our enemies and at the worst could lead to direct harm and lives lost. We are in for the fight of our lives whether we know it or not.

Notice how quiet Russia and China have been other than some grandstanding by a Russian official about delivering nucs to Iran. Even they are not that dumb. They know that nuclear weapon could be turned on them the next time they invade Afghanistan or Chechnya. Russia and China are both taking in the data and crapping their pants. Let me say it again. Knocked out nuclear program without a loss of American lives or planes.

Only one reason those people are given top secret clearance. So they can help the USA make the best possible decision about national security. Their privilege should not be used to undermine the US government or for political theatre. I am glad it only took 24 hours to correct the misinformation. Politicians should not get a pass. At least jail time. Being excluded from any federal or state job should also be imposed. They can’t be trusted.

FAR 61.1(b)(vii)

(vii) For a military pilot who qualifies for a commercial pilot certificate (except with a rotorcraft category rating) under § 61.73 of this part, time acquired during a flight—

(A) Conducted in an appropriate aircraft;

(B) That is at least a straight-line distance of more than 50 nautical miles from the original point of departure; and

(C) That involves the use of dead reckoning, pilotage, electronic navigation aids, radio aids, or other navigation systems.

According to that, they can log cross-country hours even when they fly visual patterns!!!!

Correct - In the Intel community each agency has a role and only DIA and CIA are officially the "all source" agencies. So when NSA is asked about the success would only provide analysis on signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection that was collected about the raid. NGA would only provide analysis of the imagery (GEOSPATIAL) etc. That can lead to agencies having different opinions. In theory CIA and DIA would agree but often CIA will not release all the human intelligence (HUMINT) to DIA so even their "all source" analysis can disagree.

Plus. Analysis is hard! It's all about discovering information the target doesn't want you to know.

There's nothing legitimate about anything in this statement.

You think the fact that they got nothing off says more about their lack of ability than it does about our ability? Do you know what pre-emptive HARM strikes are, why they exist, or what will happen if they turn their radars on? Do you not think that had they launched fighters, our ability to shoot them down immediately isn't more an indication of how good we are than how bad they are?

This operation was perhaps the most well-executed complex military operation utilizing multiple assets from multiple components in over 20 years. This had all the markings of Weapons School level planning and execution. Literally every asset was used for exactly the role they were designed for.

Regarding cost, Google "B-2 strike Libya 2017" and tell me what you think about the cost of that operation. They launched two B-2s to drop 108 GPS-guided JDAMs on pax out in the open in perhaps the most permissive airspace in the Middle East, all to kill less than 80 low-level enemy fighters, and then went on a full-court PR blitz bragging about it. How much did killing 80 low-level fighters with strategic bombers set back AQ's program? I literally can't think of a worse use of resources in terms both of cost as well as effectiveness in my entire career.

Whether we set that facility back days, months, or years is almost irrelevant. For the record, I am on the side of there's no way that kind of destructive firepower even simply near all those sensitive centrifuges, etc didn't set back that facility's capacity. That, combined with our ability to monitor their attempts to replace damaged equipment, has the potential to have a lasting impact.

Additionally, all of our potential adversaries are now well aware that we can operate unimpeded in well-defended airspace and you won't even know we were there. We have weapons that can reach DEEP underground, so even if we may or may not be able to get all the way to that facility, we can probably get to where you are. And, if we need to come back, we can and we will.

The only thing that sets off my BS meter is people trying to make what they think are accurate intel assessments on a complex capability based on open-source information mere days after the strike.

"lower level individuals having delusions of grandeur and wanting to influence national level politics..."

i.e. Federal District Court judges that have no protection from being eliminated under the Constitution.

Update - even Iran's Foreign Minister is now acknowledging that the nuclear facilities sustained "significant and serious" damage. This is as reported by the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/worl ... maged.html

So the list of folks claiming this attack was ineffective is down to the ayatollah, a few political hacks, and some here on BT who wish it were true.

I doubt there is anyone on BT that wished that