Yes, dropped by aircraft, but a ballistic missile will need to be extremely accurate in order to be used for that task

I imagine that the mass needed to have the momentum for bunker-busting is a
problem for anything but the largest of missiles.

Bunker busting bombs are a bit more complicated that armor peircing. For one, the fuse delay is substantially longer, meaning the detonator must withstand the shock forces of deceleration for an extended period. Second you have an issue of mass. Armor piercing weapons depend on mass and speed - which a missile should have in any case. However, a missile has lightened its load tremendously via fuel expendeture. Many bunker busters were developed using the French Durandal style - as narrow a penetrator as possible to minimize resistance to penetration. Hard to build onto the nose of a guided missile.

Speaking of accuracy - to deliver a "bunker buster" requires a specific impact trajectory. When your questioning if they can even hit the target - hitting it within the required parameters is another magnitude of difficulty.

Also - accuracy is more than just strapping a GPS on the device. Even GPS artillary rounds of today are considered deadeye effective with a 10 meter impact. Now thats using the military GPS satellites that are available - not the civilian ones. Sure - civvy GPS can tell you where you are within a foot or so - but the response time for that is too slow for missile guidance. And last time I checked - Iran wasn't putting their own military GPS satellites in space - either on their own or with the help of a "lifter" country. Its also safe to say that the few countries that have military grade GPS transponders in orbit aren't going to let the Iranians use em to guide in a strike. Plus there are all the technical difficulties of matching a gps guidance system to a missile - itself not a easy task. Sorry - but that is beyond the CURRENT ability of the Iranian military. In a decade I likely won't be able to say that.

Lastly - sure you can compute range via fuel consumption and factor in a safety range. That isn't all of the equation though. You have to have a engine that can withstand the longer burn, an airframe that can handle the additional stresses, etc. Sure, you can run simulations and hope that theory matches reality - but if you NEVER TEST it - you don't know. If you don't know - and you make a threat based off laboratory thesis - your saber rattling.

Its like this - had the US told Japan in WW2 - don't mess with us because we have subs with a torpedo that with one hit can destroy any ship afloat (using the magnetic detonator) which was the THEORY at the time - it would have been a saber rattle. Why? Because the weapon didn't do what the lab folks said. The magnetic detonator was never tested before the war. Not one time in a field test. Sure they ran it in a lab. But no field tests. The WW2 skippers got to do that - on the firing line. Remember how well that turned out?

**Edit - regarding the Israeli silo's being hardened - do you think that the military built sites that were not designed to withstand direct, non-nuclear strikes? When your talking about your strongest weapon - you spare no expense in protecting it as best you can. They had the money, and it got spent on something...... I don't see any Israeli CV's cruising the med......

BAH! Nuke the entire middle east and let Hades sort them out.

He tells you? Or do you 'believe' so? And which god do you mean? There are dozens of them. ;)

Depends how attractive he is, might of attracted the love of Aphrodite. :rotfl: