If the rock behind Bin Laden was sedimentary, it would suggest that the area was underwater at some recent point in its history. I suspect only southern Afghanistan is at a low enough elevation to have been under a sea in the recent past.
Any experts out there who can back that up or discredit my theory?
If he claims he recognizes a particular kind of rock .. more power to him. He probably can.
But limiting an area to even 100 square MILES (a small 10 mile x 10 mile area geologically!) is way too big a search area for dropping bombs. Limiting it to a single mesa or outcropping could helpful though. Limiting the search region (for ground observers working over an area for weeks) would be helpful.
NO BOMB - even a modest size nuke - is going to be effective more than 1 mile away against underground targets in the mountains. Figure a kill distance of a few hundred feet (even less) for conventional explosives.
Nagasaki, for example, with very small hills and valleys, had "protected" areas only a short distance from the ground zero of an air blast.
Real big nuke? Sure - Bigger damage area. But still not real large compared to a "mountainside" in a far country valley.
Hmmmmm.
OK I'll throw in my few units of Geology.
Present elevation is not necessarily an indicator of past elevation.
I would say more "distant" past rather than "recent" past.