>>507964946This is the kind of thing that would annihilate stuff like
>>507964777Even more so if you made them larger somehow, but that would need some sort of hybrid bomber or a better bomber to deliver it, if not some giga-rocket.
There would be somewhat some advantages to making some hybrid rocket version of it - namely extra speed versus gravity deploy.
Being able to make them larger could aid in penetration as well, extra shielding is always a bonus.
Although as
>>507965711 just points out, the larger you try to make a speedy fly-boy to deliver such a massive bomb, the higher the chance there is of it being blown out of the sky.
Some people would question the use of nuclear here, but given it'd largely be underground, others would turn their heads away not caring, radioactive leakage would be low even if it was an open gaping crater on the surface.
There's also the chance that the bunkers location is complete bullshit.
"Hey look guys we're totally building a huge bunker here lol"
Turns out the bunker was actually a kilometer away and they actually built several hundred entrances to the bunker all over the place.
One of the best places to build bunkers is under the guise of building something else there.
Building underground aquaduct? Fork off from it and build bunker under it. No cunt would question a bunch of dump trucks filled with rocks, nobody is going to be sitting there counting the trucks and the theoretical max amount of trucks that would be needed based on the distance of the aquaduct and go "hey waaaait a damn minute!! Where's this extra rock coming from boyo??"
Distraction is a key tool here, whether they used it or not is the real question.