Feeling tired of all the posturing about the Iran situation. Went to a British
'scandal sheet' for hit of straight talk. Below, The Sun UK:
* * *
After days of rain, I am seeing a bit of dry skies and am going for a **WALK**.
For those looking for a blow-by-low of current negotiations in Iran, Le Figaro is on it:
Slow fall on the Moon:
https://youtube.com/shorts/sWpRQHXaeVI?si=DsbDkdtxYZDVg43m
* * *
Gemini:
Astronaut height; I have read that astronauts can gain quite a bit of height in a zero gravity environment. Did this happen to the Artemis ll crew; and are they back to their original heights now?
You're right—astronauts do experience a "growth spurt" in space! On average, they can gain up to 3% of their height (roughly 2 to 5 centimeters) while in microgravity.
This happens because the discs in the spinal column, which are normally compressed by Earth's gravity, expand and stretch out when that downward force is removed.
Did it happen to the Artemis II crew?
The Artemis II crew—Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen—just returned to Earth this past weekend, splashing down on April 10, 2026, after their 10-day journey around the Moon.
Because NASA has found that most of this height increase occurs within the first 3 to 4 days of weightlessness, the Artemis II crew likely experienced some level of spinal elongation. However, because their mission was relatively short (10 days) compared to the six-month stints on the International Space Station, their "space growth" was likely less pronounced than what is seen in long-duration astronauts.
Are they back to their original heights now?
Yes, they almost certainly are—or will be within a few days. Once an astronaut returns to Earth's gravity, the spine begins to compress again almost immediately.
Timeline: Most astronauts return to their "Earth height" within a few hours to a few days of landing.
The Artemis II Status: Having splashed down just four days ago, the crew is currently undergoing post-flight medical evaluations. While they may have felt a bit taller and perhaps a little stiff upon exiting the Orion capsule, gravity is quite efficient at resetting the spine to its pre-flight state.
Interestingly, this height change is why NASA builds extra "growth room" into spacesuits and spacecraft seating—to ensure that a "taller" astronaut still fits safely in their chair for the bumpy ride home!
What about vision; I have read that vision can be affected as liquid gushes into the brain. And that can be harder to reverse!!
You are spot on—the vision issue is actually considered one of the top medical risks for long-term space travel, and it is significantly more complex than the temporary height increase.
The phenomenon you’re describing is called Spaceflight Associated Neuro-ocular Syndrome (SANS).
The "Liquid Gush" and the Eye
On Earth, gravity pulls your fluids (blood and cerebrospinal fluid) toward your legs. In space, that fluid shifts toward your head—often called the "puffy-face, bird-legs" effect.
As this fluid collects in the skull, it increases intracranial pressure. This pressure pushes against the back of the eyes, causing:
Globe Flattening: The eyeball literally becomes less round and more flat.
Optic Disc Edema: Swelling of the optic nerve.
Hyperopic Shift: Astronauts often become more farsighted, making it hard to see things up close.
Is it harder to reverse?
Yes. While height returns to normal almost immediately, vision changes can be stubborn.
The Stats: About 70% of astronauts on long-duration missions (6 months or more) show signs of SANS.
The Recovery: For many, vision stabilizes after returning to Earth, but for some, the refractive shifts (the change in how the eye focuses) and structural changes to the eye globe can persist for years or even become permanent.
What about the Artemis II Crew?
The Artemis II crew (Wiseman, Glover, Koch, and Hansen) returned just a few days ago on April 10, 2026. Here is how they likely fared:
Short Duration Advantage: Their mission lasted only 10 days. SANS is typically a "long-duration" problem; data shows the most significant eye damage happens to those who spend months on the International Space Station (ISS).
Early Detection: Because NASA is very concerned about this for future Mars missions, the Artemis II crew was essentially a flying laboratory. They had their eyes scanned and tested extensively during the flight and are currently undergoing high-resolution imaging to see if even a 10-day trip caused measurable flattening.
Current Status: While the crew has reported being in high spirits and "bonding" over the experience, their specific medical data regarding vision is still being processed by NASA's flight surgeons. Generally, for a 10-day mission, any vision blurriness is expected to be minor and temporary.
To manage this on longer trips, NASA actually provides "spaceflight glasses"—adjustable strength reading glasses—because they know the crew's vision will likely change mid-mission!
Can they catch colds, have headaches and so forth on such missions?
Absolutely. In many ways, being an astronaut on a short mission like Artemis II is like having a constant, mild cold while also being slightly seasick.
Because the crew just returned on April 10, we know they dealt with these exact physiological hurdles during their 10-day trip.
1. The "Space Cold" (Congestion)
Astronauts almost always feel "stuffed up." This isn't usually a virus like the common cold, but rather a result of the fluid shift we discussed earlier.
Why it happens: Without gravity to pull fluids down, blood and lymph pool in the head. This causes the nasal passages and sinuses to swell, leading to chronic congestion and a "heavy" feeling in the face.
The "Space Food" Connection: This congestion is why space food is often heavily spiced or contains lots of hot sauce. Because their noses are so blocked, astronauts lose much of their sense of taste and smell—everything tastes bland, like eating with a head cold!
2. Space Adaptation Syndrome (Headaches & Nausea)
Up to 70–90% of astronauts experience some form of "Space Adaptation Syndrome" during the first few days.
Headaches: These are incredibly common. They are triggered by the increased pressure in the skull and the "sensory conflict" where your inner ear tells you you're falling, but your eyes see you are sitting still.
Motion Sickness: Even veteran pilots like Reid Wiseman or Victor Glover can get "space sick." It usually involves nausea and cold sweats. NASA manages this with medication (like scopolamine or promethazine), but the crew typically "gets their space legs" after the third or fourth day.
3. Actual Colds and Infections
Can they catch a real cold? It's much harder than on Earth, but it has happened.
The Quarantine: To prevent a crew member from bringing a virus on board, the Artemis II crew underwent a strict pre-flight quarantine. This ensures that if anyone is incubating a cold or the flu, it shows up before they launch.
Immune System Stress: Research shows that the stress of spaceflight, radiation, and altered sleep can "dampen" the immune system. This can lead to the reactivation of latent viruses (like the virus that causes cold sores) that the astronaut already had in their system.
Floating Germs: On Earth, if you sneeze, gravity pulls the droplets to the floor. In the Orion capsule, those droplets just float in the air, making it much easier for one sick crew member to infect everyone else.
How the Artemis II Crew Handled It
Since their mission was only 10 days, the crew likely spent the first half of the mission "adapting" (dealing with headaches and stuffiness) and the second half feeling relatively normal.
When they stepped out of the capsule last Friday, Commander Reid Wiseman noted they were "feeling fine," but they are currently being monitored in Houston to see how their immune systems and sinus pressures are readjusting to Earth's heavy atmosphere.
What other medical risks are considered important to monitor?
While the height and vision changes are the most famous, NASA and other space agencies monitor a wide range of other risks. Since the Artemis II crew just returned on April 10, 2026, they are currently the focus of intense medical study because they were the first humans to leave Earth’s protective magnetic field in over 50 years.
Here are the other critical medical risks they are monitoring:
1. Deep Space Radiation
This was the "Big One" for the Artemis II mission. Unlike astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS), the Artemis II crew traveled through the Van Allen Radiation Belts and into deep space, where they were exposed to high-energy Galactic Cosmic Rays.
The Risk: These particles can slice through DNA, increasing the long-term risk of cancer and potentially affecting the central nervous system (brain fog or cognitive "decrements").
Artemis II Monitoring: The crew wore personal active dosimeters (radiation trackers) throughout the 10-day trip. While their total exposure was roughly equal to a month on the ISS, scientists are checking for any acute cellular damage caused by these specific deep-space particles.
2. Bone and Muscle Loss
Gravity provides "loading" that tells your body to keep your bones strong. In microgravity, the body decides those heavy bones are unnecessary and starts reabsorbing the calcium.
The Loss: Astronauts can lose 1% to 1.5% of their bone mass every month.
The "Flywheel" Solution: To fight this on the small Orion capsule, the Artemis II crew used a compact "flywheel" device (similar to a rowing machine) for about 30 minutes a day. Now that they are home, they are undergoing scans to see if even a 10-day trip caused measurable "deconditioning" in their legs and lower backs.
3. Cardiovascular "Shrinking"
The heart is a muscle, and in space, it doesn't have to pump blood "upward" against gravity.
The Effect: Because it has less work to do, the heart can actually become slightly more spherical and lose some muscle mass.
Post-Flight Risk: This is why astronauts often feel faint or dizzy (orthostatic hypotension) when they first stand up after splashdown—their hearts and blood vessels have "forgotten" how to quickly push blood to the brain against Earth's gravity.
4. Kidney Stones
The fluid shifts and bone loss mentioned earlier create a "perfect storm" for the kidneys.
The Cause: As bones lose calcium, that calcium ends up in the bloodstream and eventually the urine. Combined with the mild dehydration that often happens in space (because the "thirst" signal is weaker), astronauts have a significantly higher risk of developing painful kidney stones.
5. The "Overview Effect" (Psychological Shift)
Medical monitoring isn't just physical; it's also neurological.
The Brain on Awe: Scientists monitor the "Overview Effect"—a profound shift in perspective that happens when seeing Earth as a tiny, fragile marble in a void.
Artemis II Experience: Commander Reid Wiseman recently noted that seeing the far side of the Moon was so overwhelming that it "rewires" how the brain processes scale and conflict. Psychologists are studying the crew now to see how this intense experience affects their long-term mental health and group dynamics.
6. Toxic Fumes (Post-Landing)
Even after they hit the water, the medical risk isn't over. One of the first things recovery teams did when the Orion splashed down last Friday was a "toxic vapor sweep." They have to ensure no hydrazine (fuel) or ammonia (coolant) leaked into the cabin, as breathing these even for a few minutes can cause permanent lung damage or chemical pneumonia.
Just Thinking:
It's a Liberal Majority for Canada's federal government under the skillful Mark Carney.
Congratulations to the Liberal Team!
* * *
Keeping it real with Stromae:
NASA has just announced that Artemis lll won't be a Moon landing after ll. Rather, it will be
practice working with space docking, as NASA decides whether to go with SpaceX or Blue
Origin.
Very wise. We are not ready to pack our boxes yet. and by a long-shot. Below:
Iran War; where does Israel get its oil?
Israel gets most of its crude oil from the global market, not from a single domestic source. In practice, its main suppliers have included Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and also some West African producers like Gabon.
How it arrives
The oil is shipped mostly by tanker to Israeli ports such as Ashdod, Haifa, and Ashkelon, with some cargoes routed through Eilat when needed. Israel also imports refined fuel products, not just crude oil.
Why this matters in an Iran war
Because Israel buys oil internationally, the bigger risk in a regional war is usually disruption to shipping, ports, and refinery operations rather than a total lack of suppliers. The oil market is global, so Israel can often reroute supply, but conflict can raise costs and tighten logistics.
Main suppliers
Azerbaijan, via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan route.
Kazakhstan and Russia, via the Caspian Pipeline Consortium route.
West African crude, especially Gabon.
Would you like a simple map-style breakdown of the routes and ports?
Were they not affected by the sanctions against Russia?
Not completely. Israel was not part of the Western sanctions regime on Russia, so it could still buy some Russian-linked oil products and Russian-facilitated crude flows, even though those purchases became more politically sensitive and sometimes more expensive or complicated.
What changed
EU and U.S. sanctions targeted Russian oil exports, shipping, insurance, and refined products, which reduced some direct trade routes and made Russian supply harder to move through normal channels. But sanctions were not universal, so oil could still reach Israel through third countries, mixed cargoes, or supply chains involving Kazakhstan via Russia’s export infrastructure.
Why Israel still had access
Israel’s main crude sources were still diversified enough that it could replace some Russian barrels with other suppliers like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and West African producers. Also, some Russian-linked flows mattered more for refined products like VGO, and those flows appear to have continued in at least some form after the sanctions tightened.
Practical effect
So the sanctions did affect the trade, but they did not cut Israel off from Russian energy entirely. The bigger effect was friction: fewer straightforward deals, more routing complexity, and more scrutiny from the U.S. and Europe.
Follow-ups
Why Israel's Russian oil imports create geopolitical risks amid US pressure and Iran tensions
Deep research
How does Israel import Russian VGO via Turkey
What percentage of Israel oil is from CPC pipeline
Why did Israel lose KRG oil supply in 2023
Alternatives to Russian oil for Israel like Kazakhstan sources
Iran War; I have been following developments in the Gulf of Hormuz. Iranian forces have littered the passage with 'intelligent' mines. Can you tell me what kind of weapon this is??
Short answer:
The “intelligent mines” Iran has reportedly placed in the Strait of Hormuz are modern, sensor‑equipped naval mines—specifically systems like the Maham‑3 and Maham‑7—designed to detect ships using magnetic, acoustic, and pressure signatures and detonate with high precision.
🧭 What these mines actually are
Iran’s “intelligent” or “smart” mines are not old‑style contact mines that explode only when physically struck. Instead, they are influence mines, meaning they use onboard sensors to detect a vessel’s presence and characteristics.
Two types have been identified in open‑source intelligence:
Maham‑3 (moored influence mine)
Uses magnetic and acoustic sensors to detect ships
Anchored in place below the surface
Designed to target large metal hulls such as tankers or warships
Harder to sweep because it doesn’t rely on simple contact triggers
Maham‑7 (seabed “limpet‑style” mine)
Sits on the seafloor, making it difficult to detect with sonar
Uses sophisticated triggers to detonate near passing ships
Optimized for stealth and selective targeting
Both are considered modern, multi‑sensor naval mines capable of discriminating between vessel types and detonating only under specific conditions.
🎯 Why they’re called “intelligent”
These mines are described as “intelligent” because they can:
Sense a ship’s magnetic, acoustic, or pressure signature
Decide whether the target matches programmed criteria
Detonate selectively, reducing wasted shots
Remain dormant until a qualifying target appears
Be placed in fixed, known positions, allowing Iran to manage safe lanes for “approved” vessels
This turns the minefield into a controlled chokepoint, not a random hazard.
🌊 Why they matter in the Strait of Hormuz
Even a small number of these mines can:
Slow or halt commercial shipping
Force navies into dangerous clearance operations
Give Iran leverage in negotiations
Spike global oil prices due to uncertainty
The U.S. and allies have begun mine‑clearing operations in response, which has triggered tense radio exchanges with Iranian forces.
If you want, I can also explain:
How influence mines detect ships
How mine‑clearing operations work
How these mines compare to Western “smart mines”
What risks they pose to commercial shipping
Which angle would you like to explore next?
Apparently they were dormant until command forces decided to activate them. Could they be put to sleep again, or was that irreversible?
The short version: Yes, many modern influence mines can be remotely put to sleep again — but not all.
Whether Iran’s mines can be re‑dormant depends on the specific model and how Iran configured them. Some modes are reversible, others are one‑way.
Let me break down what’s actually plausible with the types of mines Iran is known to deploy.
🧩 1. Two ways “dormant activation” works
When reports say Iranian mines were “dormant until command forces activated them,” that can mean one of two mechanisms:
A. Pre‑programmed timers / conditions
The mine is physically active but won’t detonate until:
a certain date/time
a certain number of ships pass
a specific acoustic signature is detected
These cannot be “put back to sleep” once the trigger window opens. They’re like a scheduled alarm.
B. Remote activation (command‑detonated or command‑enabled)
Some modern mines include:
acoustic command receivers
coded sonar pings
low‑frequency communication triggers
These allow operators to:
arm the mine
disarm the mine
switch it into standby
change sensitivity
These can be put back to sleep, as long as the mine’s battery and receiver are still functioning.
🧩 2. What Iran specifically uses
Iran’s “intelligent” mines — such as the Maham‑3 and Maham‑7 — are believed to include:
multi‑sensor influence triggers (magnetic, acoustic, pressure)
programmable logic
optional command‑activation modules
Iran has openly demonstrated mines that can be:
activated remotely
left dormant until a coded signal is sent
But Iran has not publicly shown reversible remote‑disarm capability. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist — only that it’s not confirmed.
🧩 3. So can they be put back to sleep?
If they use command‑activation modules:
Yes — they can be returned to dormant or safe mode, assuming:
the mine’s receiver is intact
the battery hasn’t degraded
the mine hasn’t already entered its “armed” logic cycle
If they use timed or conditional activation:
No — once the activation window opens, the mine is “live” until:
it detonates
it is physically neutralized
its battery dies
If they use one‑way acoustic arming codes:
Some mines use a “one‑time arming code” for security.
In that case, arming is reversible only if a second disarm code exists — and not all designs include one.
🧩 4. The strategic reason Iran might not include reversible disarming
A reversible minefield is:
safer for friendly shipping
more flexible
But it is also:
more vulnerable to spoofing
more complex
more expensive
Iran tends to favor robust, low‑cost, hard‑to-counter systems.
So while reversible modes are possible, they are not guaranteed.
🧭 Bottom line
Some Iranian mines could be put back to sleep — but only if they were built with two‑way command capability.
If they rely on timers or one‑way arming codes, the activation is irreversible without physically removing the mine.
If you want, I can also walk you through:
how remote acoustic arming actually works
how navies detect whether a mine is in dormant or active mode
why reversible mines are rare in asymmetric warfare
Just tell me which direction you want to explore.
If there is a large number of mines, reversibility would make sense!?
You’re thinking exactly along the right lines.
If a country lays hundreds of mines in a narrow chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz, reversible activation isn’t just convenient — it becomes strategically logical.
But whether Iran actually implemented that reversibility is a different question.
Let’s break down why reversibility makes sense, and why Iran might still avoid it.
🌐 Why reversibility would make sense for a large minefield
When a state deploys a big minefield, it faces three major problems:
1. Friendly shipping still needs to move
Iran still needs:
IRGC patrol boats
supply vessels
approved commercial ships
If the mines are permanently armed, Iran risks:
accidental friendly losses
blocking its own ports
losing control of escalation
A reversible “sleep/awake” mode solves this.
2. Tactical flexibility
If tensions rise and fall, Iran may want to:
activate mines during a crisis
deactivate them when negotiating
open temporary safe lanes
avoid provoking a coalition mine‑clearing response
A reversible minefield gives Iran dial‑a‑pressure capability.
3. Mine maintenance and battery life
Modern influence mines rely on:
onboard batteries
sensor arrays
logic circuits
If they stay fully armed for months, they drain power.
A reversible dormant mode preserves battery life and extends operational usefulness.
⚠️ So why wouldn’t Iran make them reversible?
Because reversibility introduces two big risks:
1. Spoofing or interception
If a mine can be remotely disarmed, then:
the signal can be jammed
the signal can be spoofed
the command channel can be detected
Iran knows the U.S. Navy specializes in:
acoustic countermeasures
signal analysis
electronic warfare
A reversible command channel is a vulnerability.
2. Complexity = cost + failure points
Iran’s naval doctrine favors:
cheap
robust
low‑tech
hard‑to-counter
A mine with:
two‑way acoustic communication
encryption
command receivers
…is more expensive and more fragile.
For a country that wants quantity and deniability, simpler is often better.
🎯 So what’s the most likely reality?
Based on Iran’s known mine designs and doctrine:
Most likely:
Mines can be activated remotely (one‑way command)
Once activated, they cannot be put back to sleep
Dormant mode is pre‑activation only
Possible but less likely:
Two‑way reversible command modules exist
Used only in limited, high‑value minefields
Not deployed widely due to cost and risk
Least likely:
Full reversible control across a large minefield
Continuous remote management
Secure encrypted acoustic channels for all mines
That level of sophistication is rare even among major navies.
🧭 Bottom line
Reversibility absolutely makes sense when you deploy many mines — but Iran’s doctrine and technology suggest they probably use one‑way activation, not full reversible control.
They want mines that are:
simple
reliable
hard to neutralize
cheap to produce in large numbers
A reversible minefield is strategically elegant, but it’s also technically risky.
If you want, I can go deeper into:
how reversible acoustic command systems work
how the U.S. detects whether a mine is armed or dormant
why influence mines are so hard to sweep in shallow water
how Iran’s mine strategy compares to Cold War Soviet doctrine
Just tell me which direction you want to explore.
Would the batteries need re-charging? How can that be done?
Great question, Louise — and it gets into the real engineering limits of naval mines.
The short answer is: yes, the batteries eventually need recharging, but no, you cannot recharge them in place underwater.
Once deployed, a mine’s power supply is essentially a use‑it‑until-it-dies system.
Let’s unpack this clearly and practically.
⚡ 1. What powers a modern “intelligent” mine?
Smart influence mines use:
Primary lithium batteries (non‑rechargeable)
Long‑life thermal batteries
Occasionally seawater-activated cells
These are chosen because they are:
extremely reliable
stable for years
resistant to pressure and corrosion
silent (no charging circuits)
They are not rechargeable once deployed.
⚡ 2. Why not use rechargeable batteries?
Rechargeable systems require:
charging ports
induction coils
external power sources
maintenance access
All of these introduce failure points and detectability.
A mine must be:
sealed
silent
corrosion‑proof
tamper‑proof
Rechargeable systems violate those principles.
⚡ 3. How long do the batteries last?
Typical endurance:
Dormant mode: 5–10 years
Active sensing mode: 6–24 months
High‑sensitivity mode: weeks to months
This is why reversible “sleep mode” is useful — it preserves battery life.
But once the battery is drained, the mine becomes:
inert
non‑responsive
unable to receive commands
effectively dead
⚡ 4. Can the batteries be recharged underwater?
No.
There is no practical or safe way to recharge a sealed underwater mine.
To recharge, you would need to:
locate the mine
lift it
disarm it
open the pressure hull
replace or recharge the battery
reseal and redeploy
At that point, it’s easier to just deploy a new mine.
⚡ 5. Could Iran design a mine with inductive charging?
In theory, yes.
In practice, it would be:
expensive
complex
vulnerable to detection
vulnerable to spoofing
not aligned with Iran’s doctrine of cheap, robust, deniable weapons
Iran’s naval strategy favors quantity and simplicity, not high‑tech maintenance‑heavy systems.
So inductive charging mines are extremely unlikely.
⚡ 6. What happens when the battery gets low?
Depending on the design, the mine may:
shut down into permanent dormancy
fail to respond to remote commands
lose sensor accuracy
become a harmless object on the seabed
A dying battery is one reason minefields “fade” over time.
🎯 Bottom line
Yes, the batteries eventually run out. No, they cannot be recharged in place.
Once deployed, a mine’s power supply is a sealed, single‑use system.
If Iran wants a long‑term minefield, they must periodically lay new mines.
If you want, I can also explain:
how navies detect battery‑dead mines
how long Iranian mines likely last in the Strait’s warm, corrosive water
why battery endurance shapes Iran’s mine strategy
Just tell me which angle you want to explore next.
Could an underwater mine blow-up accidentally. For example, if another mine in its vicinity blew up...
Short version: yes, an underwater mine can detonate because of another mine exploding nearby — but only under certain conditions.
Modern “intelligent” mines are designed to avoid this, but physics still matters.
Let’s break it down clearly and safely.
🌊 1. The physics: underwater shock waves are brutal
When an explosive detonates underwater, it creates a shock wave that travels far more efficiently than in air.
Water is dense and incompressible, so the pressure spike can:
crush nearby structures
damage sensors
rupture casings
trigger sensitive fuzes
This is why navies worry about sympathetic detonation — one explosion causing another.
🎯 2. Can a mine be set off by another mine’s explosion?
Older mines:
Absolutely.
Classic contact mines or simple influence mines can be triggered by:
pressure waves
hull deformation
mechanical shock
These are the ones most vulnerable to chain reactions.
Modern influence mines:
They are designed to resist accidental detonation.
They include:
shock‑resistant casings
dampened sensor mounts
logic that ignores sudden pressure spikes
anti‑countermeasure filters
But “resistant” is not “immune.”
A very close explosion can still:
damage the mine
break its anchor
disable its sensors
or in rare cases, set it off
⚙️ 3. What about Iran’s “intelligent” mines?
Iran’s Maham‑series mines and similar systems are believed to include:
multi‑sensor influence triggers
shock‑resistant housings
logic filters to avoid false triggers
They are meant to ignore:
dolphins
fishing boats
nearby explosions
mine‑clearing charges
But if a mine is close enough to another detonation, the shock wave can:
crack the casing
rupture the explosive fill
damage the fuze
or in extreme cases, cause detonation
So yes, sympathetic detonation is possible, but only at relatively short distances.
🧩 4. How navies prevent chain reactions when clearing mines
Mine‑clearing teams deliberately use:
low‑yield charges
directed blasts
distance spacing
robotic neutralizers
The goal is to destroy one mine without triggering others nearby.
This is why clearing a minefield is slow and dangerous.
🧭 5. Bottom line
A mine can be accidentally detonated by another mine’s explosion, but modern designs try hard to prevent this.
Iran’s mines are likely resistant to sympathetic detonation, but not invulnerable.
A close enough underwater blast can still cause:
detonation
damage
or complete failure
The risk is real, but controlled.
If you want, I can also explain:
how influence mines filter out “false positives”
how close two mines must be for sympathetic detonation to be likely
how mine‑clearing robots neutralize mines without setting off others
Just tell me which direction you want to explore next.
* * *
Iran's possible strategy...
DeepSeek ai:
https://chat.deepseek.com/share/drsr3rlq7oimlmi8w8
https://chat.deepseek.com/share/8gj3shl2lx35ezufbf
