9 ms·
Iran Says It Will Enrich Uranium to 60%
- grammarprofess 6y agoGood Luck! At this point I would hope they would get innovative and try different options for their electricity or defense needs. Why are they getting so stuck on enriching uranium ? Why not try something else ?
- titzer 6y ago60% U-235 is far more than what is necessary for commercial power generation, and yet less than what it is necessary for a nuclear weapon (> 90%). This is a threat to make a bomb without actually crossing the line to actually making a bomb.
- devoutsalsa 6y agoIt seems that commercial reactors use 3% to 5% enriched Uranium. [1] Is there any practical reason to enrich Uranium to 60%? For example, is it cheaper to enrich the Uranium to 60%, and then use that as fuel for ~12 commercial reactors by diluting it down to ~5%? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Low_enriched_uranium_(LEU) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Low_enriched_...
- sokoloff 6y agoThis appears to be spending a lot of effort to concentrate uranium into a tidy, enriched package in order to provoke Israel into transforming that package into a significantly less concentrated and much less usable form.
- baybal2 6y agoIt will allow it to work longer before a refuelling is needed. Higher reactivity reserve before fuel poisoning sets in.
- supertrope 6y agoWhich describes radioisotope thermoelectric generators in spacecraft, prototype small sealed reactors, and nuclear submarines. The last is obviously military use.
- AdamJacobMuller 6y ago> Is there any practical reason to enrich Uranium to 60%? Yes. Going from 2% -> 90% first requires you to go from 2% -> 60% both in the mathematical sense (2->60->90) and in the process sense (it's a lot less work to from 60% -> 90% than it is from 2% -> 90%) and also in the sense that you to first develop the technology to enrich uranium to various levels, then develop the technology to enrich it to that level at scale, enriching to 2% isn't that hard, enriching to 60% is hard, enriching to 90% is harder but the leap from 2->60 is a lot harder than the leap from 60->90. In short, no, I don't think there is any practical reason to enrich to 60% unless your intention is to either enrich to weapons grade or as a threat to do so.
- Symmetry 6y agoWell, using more highly enriched uranium means you can make reactors lighter and more compact which is very important if you want to send them to outer space. I don't think Iran has any immediate interest in that but it's very much on NASA's radar.
- stunt 6y agoThere are some medical and research use cases, but I have no idea if Iran is advance enough to need that.
- HHC-Hunter 6y ago>Why are they getting so stuck on enriching uranium ? Why not try something else ? Very likely because they're under extreme trade embargo? I'll never understand why the CIA didn't just come out and say they did this attack, like they did the last one with Stuxnet. Honestly.
- pm90 6y agoBecause it blows the cover of diplomacy. Sovereign nations not at war aren’t supposed to conduct hostile ops against each other. Diplomacy and international relations are sort of their own universe with their protocols, traditions etc. Admitting to the attack would mean that the US appears as the blatant aggressor, and may have to make concessions. Plausible deniability is often safe and has no consequences.
- macspoofing 6y ago>Sovereign nations not at war aren’t supposed to conduct hostile ops against each other. Says who? When was that ever true in the history of civilization? The only peace humanity every knew was within the border of some empire. Otherwise it was constant war.
- wahern 6y agoSays international law, including the United Nations charter (reciting the Westphalian doctrine), which every member state signs onto. Of course, there are large grey areas in international relations, and nobody can reasonably expect perfect compliance, anyhow. But beyond any specific practical, tactical, or strategic reasons for maintaining plausible deniability, refusing to openly admit to a violation still reflects a degree of obeyance to the law. When large nations start openly flouting norms w/ a giant "F-U", that's when you know the international order and world peace is in trouble. Plausible deniability of military ops is the nation-state equivalent of the polite fiction in cultural anthropology--an important, useful tool providing resilience to the normative system.
- 6y ago
- anigbrowl 6y agoCan't really think of anything that has the same sort of deterrent factor as a nuke.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- LordOfWolves 6y agoThis was announced following an attack on their primary nuclear facility (in Natanz, Iran), but given the clear disparity between the necessary level of enrichment for weapons production and 60%, this comes off as "we won't stand idly by while being attacked" versus "we are preparing to enter the global nuclear arena". I am no nuclear arms expert, but based off their nuclear history, I surmise they intended this statement to be somewhat of a scare tactic that rings hollow at the end of the day.
- Ancapistani 6y ago> but given the clear disparity between the necessary level of enrichment for weapons production and 60% I'm also not an expert here, but I did a bit of research out of curiosity. First, the core Little Boy was 64kg of 80% enriched uranium. Wikipedia says the theoretical lower limit for an implosion-type nuclear bomb of 20%. This report[1], cited on Wiki's "enriched uranium" page, seems to indicate that the critical mass for 60% HEU is ~100kg (for U233) or ~200kg (for U235). Based upon that, it's not at all clear to me that 60% HEU isn't a direct step toward acquiring nuclear weapons. 1: https://web.archive.org/web/20131102011417/http://web.ornl.gov/info/reports/1998/3445606060721.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20131102011417/http://web.ornl.g...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- thrower123 6y agoAnd the Israelis will blow it up, one way or another.
- AdamJacobMuller 6y agoGood.
- disgu 6y agoIf you look at Iran's advancements you'll notice that any interference by Israel or anyone else is just slowing things down a bit. If Israel's goal is to not let Iran advance their nuclear program then they've been hilariously incompetent at it.
- CivBase 6y agoI'm just going to repeat a question I posted earlier today on a similar article. Hopefully it will get more compelling answers. Why should anyone believe they are pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy program when they do things like this? Surely the best way to convince people you are the peaceful victim is to continue to demonstrate peaceful intentions even when others don't reward you for it. For better or for worse, the JCPOA was abandoned and the accompanying incentives for Iran to limit the scope of its nuclear research disappeared. But that doesn't mean Iran is incentivized to develop nuclear weapons. Continuing to adhere to the guidelines outlined by the JCPOA would help build trust from the rest of the world that Iran really just wanted a peaceful nuclear energy program. Instead, their recent actions only seem to build distrust. After laying their intentions bare like this, why should anyone trust them with JCPOA 2.0?
- dicomdan 6y agoIt’s a fundamentalist regime, they are developing nuclear weapons and are open about it.
- pradn 6y agoI'll turn the tables here: 1) Why should Iran come to the negotiating table if the previous deal was scuttled so quickly? What even makes American treaties reliable any more? To put it another way, why should they even trust any treaty with the West? Why is Iran asked to turn the other cheek, vs America asked to provide concessions for overturning a treaty, or put hard checks on their client state, Israel. 2) If you have more to give up, wouldn't you have a stronger bargaining position? There's not much the West can do at this point in terms of tightening sanctions, and they, with the exception of Israel, have no interest in another long war in the Middle East. 3) Why should Iran not be able to develop a nuclear deterrent? It is surrounded by American bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, has Saudi and the Gulf monarchies against it close by, and is an enemy of Israel, which is known to have dozens to hundreds of nuclear warheads. Clearly, given MAD, launching nuclear weapons offensively is untenable. So, a nuclear deterrent might protect Iran from foreign attack. A deterrent means the US or its client states aren't allowed to unilaterally bomb Iran any more, which is the right they are currently claiming. I'm simply asking you to consider their view, without considering them irrational or chaotic or evil a priori. Certainly, a great deal of prejudice, jingoistic nationalism, sectarian religiosity, and macho posturing are at play on their end, as well. I can say it's similar on the end of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the US, as well. A more balanced view, understanding the motivations of all sides, may help arrive at an actual solution to this awful standoff, where innocents bear the brunt. I sincerely wish all the countries of this region, and across the world, disarmed themselves of nuclear weapons. It's too easy for disaster to occur, accidentally or at will, and we forget that this guillotine is hanging over our head at every second.
- underseacables 6y agoI have a genuine concern about Iran having a nuclear bomb. Is there someone out there with some expertise they could tell me if I’m paranoid, or if I should be really concerned?
- fatbird 6y agoPakistan, India, and China have all had nukes for decades, and are all mortal enemies, and there've even been multiple border skirmishes between pairs, without it ever escalating to open war, let alone nukes. No matter how belligerent Iran seems, it's not obvious that their possession of nuclear weapons decreases stability in the region; arguably, with Israel being the other nuclear power in the region, it increases stability by creating a MAD circumstance, where before Israel felt safe taking unilateral military action, protected by its nuclear umbrella.
- wayneftw 6y agoI'm an expert in paranoia. You should not be concerned if there's nothing you can do about it. If you think you can do something, focus on that instead. In any case, don't be too concerned.
- nyolfen 6y agoperhaps if you're israeli
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gizmo686 6y agoThe more nations that have nukes the more risk of something terrible happening with them. Having said that Iran has shown itself to be a rational actor; and there is no way it survives a nuclear conflict. The entire world, including Iran, learned a lot of lessons from the cold war; and so are unlikely to repeat the same mistakes that made us almost stumble into a nuclear war then. On the other hand, nuclear weapons have a remarcable history in maintaining (relative) world piece. It isn't a gamble I would willingly take, but Iran becoming a nuclear power might be a path to piece in the middle east.
- 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jl2718 6y agoI would suspect the possibility that 60% may be weapons-grade with modern timing systems and precise manufacturing of detonation layers and waveguides. It would seem that the ability to do finite-element shock wave simulations changes everything. But I know little about this.
- trhway 6y agoexpanding on your idea - how about the possibility that it would also allow to have weapons with small-ish (and highly tunable) yield which would allow for tactical use of it. The NK tests for example were of small yields and many declared it to be fizzles - i wonder though could it have been that they actually were able to build small yield weapons which in some sense are more useable than the megaton ones. The classic Cold War style MAD is probably showing its age and limitations - even when your country is being attacked, at least in some conventional way and especially if using modern high-precision hitting mostly military, it would probably be a very tall order to muster a decision to throw the megaton ICBMs into the country of your attacker. Compare to that the decision to use small-ish (the smaller the better) tactical nukes directly against the much larger/powerful attacking forces is practically a no-brainer.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- neonate 6y agohttps://archive.is/rcGNk https://archive.is/rcGNk