8 ms·

Let’s hope whatever intel that says Iran really does have nukes is true, given its propensity as a scapegoat for previous wars. Don’t forget that less than 2 mo

Let’s hope whatever intel that says Iran really does have nukes is true, given its propensity as a scapegoat for previous wars. Don’t forget that less than 2 months ago, senior intelligence officials said conclusively Iran was not close to having nuclear weapons. Edit: 3 months, and source: https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2051523 https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2...

uhhhd 1y ago
The photos of the facilities are literally all over the internet. The IAEA knew about it and knew Iran was enriching weapons grade uranium. This isn't Iraq 2.
- sodality2 1y ago
  Flies in the face of the US intelligence community’s report at the end of March [0], but, I am not floored if true. Do you have any sources? Edit: If you mean "Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)" [1], that report explicitly mentions up to 60% which is not weapons grade. [0]: https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2051523 https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2... [1]: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
  - frontfor 1y ago
    60% enrichment level is significantly higher than what’s required for peaceful purposes. To say that it’s not weapons grade is just disingenuous.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      Except that it is literally not weapons grade. It turns out there's a big gap between most peaceful purposes and weapons grade, and this was in that gap.
      - fallingknife 1y ago
        When the only purpose of stepping into that gap is to get to weapons grade, it doesn't really work as a gray area.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        [flagged]
        Retric 1y ago
        The only reason to make 60% is to make a weapon, and it’s actually useful in a weapon. Saying it’s not weapons grade only means you haven’t finished or intend to use something else for the initial stage.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        > only means you haven’t finished or intend to use something else for the initial stage So in other words it’s not weapons grade?
        Retric 1y ago
        No, 60% is a weapons grade enrichment level, but does not qualify in specific weapons grade categories. Reduced fat milk is often specifically referring to 2% milk, but 1% milk is also reduced fat milk.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        [flagged]
        Retric 1y ago
        Everything I just said was factually accurate. There’s a lot of misunderstanding around this stuff. Technically all you need for a bomb is the ability to go prompt critical on demand which you can do at surprisingly low enrichment levels. What’s a useful weapons grade enrichment to you has a lot to do with your delivery systems not some universal constant. If you’re looking to fit something in a WWII bomber or early generation ICBM that imposes specific limitations.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    60% enrichment may not be weapons grade, but it takes only days or weeks to go from 60% to 90%. It is much easier than going from natural uranium to 60%.
  - 827a 1y ago
    But maybe a little harshly: Who cares? Does it somehow raise the moral foundation of the operation if they had nukes? Would the attack suddenly be unethical if it was only against a military target with the public, accepted purpose to, one day, be able to develop precursors to nuclear weapons? Why?
  - dralley 1y ago
    This stuff gets grammar-hacked a million different ways. Yes, 60% enriched Uranium is not weapons-grade, but it can be made weapons grade very quickly. Once you've gotten to 60%, you've done 99% of the work - U-235 starts as such a small percentage of natural Uranium that most of the process is spent at very low concentrations. It can simultaneously be true that Iran isn't "imminently creating a bomb" and also that they're actively working towards a breakout point where they could build a dozen bombs in very quick succession once they did decide to go forwards with the process. I don't personally think they were rushing towards a bomb at this moment, but Israel isn't really in the mood to wait around until they decide to do so.
- dj_gitmo 1y ago
  > Iran was enriching weapons grade uranium Do you have a citation for this?
  - flyinglizard 1y ago
    IAEA was claiming 60% enrichment. Enough weapons grade material for nine warheads: https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analysis_of_May_2025_IAEA_Iran_Verification_Report_FINAL.pdf https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analy...
    - dragontamer 1y ago
      Weapons grade Uranium is over 90% purity. 60% is just a stepping stone towards 90%.
      - busterarm 1y ago
        You only get to 60% on the road to 90%. At 60% it has no other useful purpose.
      - lamontcg 1y ago
        That's like saying driving from NYC to Sacramento is just a "Stepping Stone" to driving to SF. You've done most of the drive. To get 1kg of U-235 requires 1.11kg at 90% purity, 1.67kg at 60% purity, and 140.6kg at natural 0.711% purity.
        Teever 1y ago
        Sure, but if this is being talked about like there's a legal justification to take military action then there actually has to be legal justification. Was what Iran doing illegal?
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        It was a pre-emptive strike based on the behaviors of a state sponsor of terrorism. It’s not like the US and its allies have not tried to stop this before - see StuxNet
- tmnvix 1y ago
  Are there other uses for highly enriched uranium? Wikipedia mentions 'research' I think. Has the Iranian government ever explained why they are enriching uranium?
  - wombatpm 1y ago
    Their story is a desire to build reactors for when the oil runs out. Energy security
    - dralley 1y ago
      Nobody builds reactors with 60% enriched uranium
      - wombatpm 1y ago
        That’s what their story is.
      - Qem 1y ago
        Well, if you have an expansionist apartheid state nearby, bent on seeking any pretense to sabotage or get your infrastructure air raided, higher enrichment factors would make much easier to safeguard fuel, given not high enough to easily cause a criticality incident. Say you have 10 ton of 2.5% enriched uranium to safeguard. If you turn it to 60% HEU, now you have only ~400kg of fuel to safeguard against air raids. Density of uranium is ~19 ton/m³, so that would correspond to just 21 liters of HEU, one bucket worth, what would make it very easy to transport and hide. That would make it possible to split it and store in safe locations, for example, inside some deep boreholes, far apart to each other, making it impervious to attack, for the duration of hostilities. Once they pass, it can be recovered and diluted back to 2.5% with natural uranium, reconstituting your original 10-ton fuel amount.
        uhhhd 1y ago
        or.... they were in the process of building bombs. (or what you said, but probably bombs).
dj_gitmo 1y ago
If they thought Iran had nukes they wouldn’t be attacking them. Nobody thinks Iran had a nuclear weapon, or that they are even trying that hard to get one.
- trebligdivad 1y ago
  I don't understand this argument; why would you have a large, acknowledged, underground nuclear purification unit if it wasn't for bombs? Why wouldn't you cooperate with their regular IAEA inspection if it wasn't for bombs?
  - friendlyasparag 1y ago
    They might be making the bombs, but once they are made (and the delivery mechanism exists), then they wouldn’t be attacked for fear of nuclear retaliation. The past two-ish decades has made it clear that nuclear weapons are the only defense against an aggressive power arbitrarily invading.
    - ra0x3 1y ago
      This was my thinking as well. Iran sending a nuke at anyone effectively is the end of Iran (and many of its people). Something something…mutually assured destruction (e.g., North Korea has nukes, makes threats, doesn’t use them)
      - card_zero 1y ago
        So the reason to make an exception to the Non-Proliferation Treaty just for the giant tyrannical fundamentalist state is, what, because otherwise they might get insecure and anxious? OK, they never signed up to it, but still.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        amanaplanacanal 1y ago
nradov 1y ago
No one in the US government was claiming that Iran had nuclear weapons. The stated reason is that they were close to having nuclear weapons based on the current rate of uranium enrichment, anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. Of course we may never know whether that's really true.
- 1659447091 1y ago
  > The stated reason is that they were close to having nuclear weapons No the US was claiming: "We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so." in it's 2025 Threat Assessment. The reports believes they were not working on them and Khamenei has the final authority to restart the program which he had not done. However, they believe there was growing pressured to do so. Trump just gave the guy reason to green light a weapons project he had so far not wanted. [pdf] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2025-Unclassified-Report.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-202...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
kelnos 1y ago
"Not close" doesn't mean they're not working on it. I think it's reasonable to expect that unspoken bit is "... but their current avenue of work is going to eventually succeed". I'm tired of the US playing puppetmaster (poorly) around the world, getting involved in conflicts that have nothing to do with us (or rather, creating conflicts when it has to do with access to oil or something). And it's not like we haven't messed up Iran enough already. But I do not want a nuclear-armed Iran to be a thing. If they were working on it and had a solid program that was likely to bear fruit, I hate to say it, but this was probably the right move. But this is a big "if"; I don't trust this administration to tell the truth about any of this, no more than I trusted Bush Jr when he said Iraq had nukes.
TeeMassive 1y ago
The predicate that Iran has them but would show restraint is the same that same that they don't have them but will show restraint and not use desperate measures like blowing up the entire Middle Eastern oil production and distribution network and ports and not use dirty bombs. Which shows how much of BS the pro-war argument was to begin with.
1659447091 1y ago
Another source, from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence[0] On that page you can download an unclassified 2025 Annual Threat Assessment [pdf] where on page 26 it states: >> We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decisionmaking apparatus. Khamenei remains the final decisionmaker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons. I also think there is more reading in there that may interest people here. [0] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2025/4058-2025-annual-threat-assessment https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/... [pdf] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2025-Unclassified-Report.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-202...
- tripletao 1y ago
  Leaving aside the accuracy of this claim, "building a weapon" here means "taking the uranium they've already enriched almost to weapons-grade, and completing final assembly into a working device". The nuclear physicists got the glory for the Manhattan Project, but the enrichment was the vast majority of the time and cost[1]. Similar ratios apply today. There is zero question that Iran's government is spending a significant fraction of its GDP on enrichment activity that would be economically absurd except as a step towards nuclear weapons--they acknowledge it proudly! That doesn't mean these strikes were necessarily a good idea. There's no question that Iran was working actively towards a bomb though, even if "building a weapon" gets redefined narrowly to exclude almost all the actual effort. 1. https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/05/17/the-price-of-the-manhattan-project/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/05/17/the-price-of-the-...
  - skissane 1y ago
    I think a good way of explaining what the Iranian government has been doing, is actively working on reducing breakout time without actually making the breakout decision "Breakout time" is how long it takes a country between the political decision to build a nuclear weapon, and actually having one which is militarily usable
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
econ 1y ago
Bibi has repeatedly informed us the bomb would be ready in the next few months for 23 years or so. Saddam also had WMDs, we just don't know where. Etc
- nsingh2 1y ago
  He's been saying this since 1992, so 33 years so far.
  - econ 1y ago
    What is the term for political leaders who fill their speeches with a Boogeyman rather than doing their job? I feel there should be a term for it. Ideally one that describes them in pairs. Like a boogey marriage.
- jiggawatts 1y ago
  "Will be done in 'x' months" vs "Could be ready within 'x' months" are distinct statements. My project managers often ask how long a project would take. I might say something like "two weeks after we're approved to start". The PMs will wait a few months, approve the project, and then look flabbergasted when it is not instantaneously completed! "But you had all this time! Months ago you said it would take weeks!"
- krona 1y ago
  > Saddam also had WMDs, we just don't know where. Presumably if Saddam had built a large reinforced concrete bunker deep in the side of a mountain hours from the nearest city, that might be a place fairly high on your checklist?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- birn559 1y ago
  Israel has also been sabotaging their program and murdering scientists for the same time. Maybe it's an instance of the prevention paradox? Together with the fact that things sometimes naturally need MUCH more time than anticipated?
biglyburrito 1y ago
You would have thought folks would have learned from the Iraq War that the US lies. I'm no fan of Khomeini's sabre-rattling, but if people are really buying into the narrative that we did this because they had nukes, idk what to tell you besides go read your history.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  It isn't just the US that lies, its politicians and leaders. People in charge want to keep power, and the only ones willing to fight their way to the top don't deserve the power of office.
- verisimi 1y ago
  Folks do know. Folks knew before the Iraq war too. But what does this generic knowledge have to do with anything, when the military action is already decided for geo-political reasons? The only decision to make is what pretext to use. In a way, the 'iraq wmd' justification has proven it's value as a pretext - so why not tweak it and use it again?
eastbound 1y ago
Iran has “Death to America” as an hymn. It is commonly accepted that a nation directly threatening others of death deserves the war.
- SillyUsername 1y ago
  Funny you should say that. The US has Bomb Iran as a parody of Barbara Ann, available on CD: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_Iran https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_Iran So apparently it's humourous to kill. It's not like for like, but if you have a rabid population with low education being told to say stuff like this, they will, just because of social pressure and brainwashing. Related, example of that brainwashing at scale: - Killing people bad, but patriotic as a soldier. - Killing people fine on TV, procreational entertainment bad. - People told what to wear bad, but telling people they must be clothed, good. - Religion says no killing, or protect those not of the same religion. People still kill, seen as no conflict of interest at all. - Hording wealth seen as successful, yet society and the world has people suffering and illegal immigration as a consequence of not having it. - People who don't work are grifters, but most people secretly want to quit their job and not work. Told to see the non workers as people sponging off society. - Forced to work until your health fails, seen as acceptable. Point being, no moral high ground because we're all brainwashed.
  - xdennis 1y ago
    > They chant "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" every week (on Fridays) in Iran led by the Iranian government. vs. > Some band in the USA wrote a song about bombing Iran in 1980. Yeah, those are completely equal.
- netsharc 1y ago
  Result 2 of 9 for "Death to America". Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393
herbst 1y ago
It doesn't matter if it's true at this point. The US can not involve themself in every fucking war for their own motives, just by calling "Bombs" they did this a few times to often. I really hope this is going to have consequences for orange man.
samrus 1y ago
if iran had nukes, israel and america wouldnt have dared bomb it. iran wasnt even close, and they must be kicking themselves for that now

uhhhd 1y ago

The photos of the facilities are literally all over the internet. The IAEA knew about it and knew Iran was enriching weapons grade uranium. This isn't Iraq 2.

sodality2 1y ago
Flies in the face of the US intelligence community’s report at the end of March [0], but, I am not floored if true. Do you have any sources? Edit: If you mean "Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)" [1], that report explicitly mentions up to 60% which is not weapons grade. [0]: https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2051523 https://www.newsweek.com/tulsi-gabbard-iran-nuclear-weapon-2... [1]: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
- frontfor 1y ago
  60% enrichment level is significantly higher than what’s required for peaceful purposes. To say that it’s not weapons grade is just disingenuous.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Except that it is literally not weapons grade. It turns out there's a big gap between most peaceful purposes and weapons grade, and this was in that gap.
    - fallingknife 1y ago
      When the only purpose of stepping into that gap is to get to weapons grade, it doesn't really work as a gray area.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        [flagged]
        Retric 1y ago
        The only reason to make 60% is to make a weapon, and it’s actually useful in a weapon. Saying it’s not weapons grade only means you haven’t finished or intend to use something else for the initial stage.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        > only means you haven’t finished or intend to use something else for the initial stage So in other words it’s not weapons grade?
        Retric 1y ago
        No, 60% is a weapons grade enrichment level, but does not qualify in specific weapons grade categories. Reduced fat milk is often specifically referring to 2% milk, but 1% milk is also reduced fat milk.
        sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        [flagged]
        Retric 1y ago
        Everything I just said was factually accurate. There’s a lot of misunderstanding around this stuff. Technically all you need for a bomb is the ability to go prompt critical on demand which you can do at surprisingly low enrichment levels. What’s a useful weapons grade enrichment to you has a lot to do with your delivery systems not some universal constant. If you’re looking to fit something in a WWII bomber or early generation ICBM that imposes specific limitations.
- hollerith 1y ago
  60% enrichment may not be weapons grade, but it takes only days or weeks to go from 60% to 90%. It is much easier than going from natural uranium to 60%.
- 827a 1y ago
  But maybe a little harshly: Who cares? Does it somehow raise the moral foundation of the operation if they had nukes? Would the attack suddenly be unethical if it was only against a military target with the public, accepted purpose to, one day, be able to develop precursors to nuclear weapons? Why?
- dralley 1y ago
  This stuff gets grammar-hacked a million different ways. Yes, 60% enriched Uranium is not weapons-grade, but it can be made weapons grade very quickly. Once you've gotten to 60%, you've done 99% of the work - U-235 starts as such a small percentage of natural Uranium that most of the process is spent at very low concentrations. It can simultaneously be true that Iran isn't "imminently creating a bomb" and also that they're actively working towards a breakout point where they could build a dozen bombs in very quick succession once they did decide to go forwards with the process. I don't personally think they were rushing towards a bomb at this moment, but Israel isn't really in the mood to wait around until they decide to do so.
dj_gitmo 1y ago
> Iran was enriching weapons grade uranium Do you have a citation for this?
- flyinglizard 1y ago
  IAEA was claiming 60% enrichment. Enough weapons grade material for nine warheads: https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analysis_of_May_2025_IAEA_Iran_Verification_Report_FINAL.pdf https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analy...
  - dragontamer 1y ago
    Weapons grade Uranium is over 90% purity. 60% is just a stepping stone towards 90%.
    - busterarm 1y ago
      You only get to 60% on the road to 90%. At 60% it has no other useful purpose.
    - lamontcg 1y ago
      That's like saying driving from NYC to Sacramento is just a "Stepping Stone" to driving to SF. You've done most of the drive. To get 1kg of U-235 requires 1.11kg at 90% purity, 1.67kg at 60% purity, and 140.6kg at natural 0.711% purity.
      - Teever 1y ago
        Sure, but if this is being talked about like there's a legal justification to take military action then there actually has to be legal justification. Was what Iran doing illegal?
        firesteelrain 1y ago
        It was a pre-emptive strike based on the behaviors of a state sponsor of terrorism. It’s not like the US and its allies have not tried to stop this before - see StuxNet
tmnvix 1y ago
Are there other uses for highly enriched uranium? Wikipedia mentions 'research' I think. Has the Iranian government ever explained why they are enriching uranium?
- wombatpm 1y ago
  Their story is a desire to build reactors for when the oil runs out. Energy security
  - dralley 1y ago
    Nobody builds reactors with 60% enriched uranium
    - wombatpm 1y ago
      That’s what their story is.
    - Qem 1y ago
      Well, if you have an expansionist apartheid state nearby, bent on seeking any pretense to sabotage or get your infrastructure air raided, higher enrichment factors would make much easier to safeguard fuel, given not high enough to easily cause a criticality incident. Say you have 10 ton of 2.5% enriched uranium to safeguard. If you turn it to 60% HEU, now you have only ~400kg of fuel to safeguard against air raids. Density of uranium is ~19 ton/m³, so that would correspond to just 21 liters of HEU, one bucket worth, what would make it very easy to transport and hide. That would make it possible to split it and store in safe locations, for example, inside some deep boreholes, far apart to each other, making it impervious to attack, for the duration of hostilities. Once they pass, it can be recovered and diluted back to 2.5% with natural uranium, reconstituting your original 10-ton fuel amount.
      - uhhhd 1y ago
        or.... they were in the process of building bombs. (or what you said, but probably bombs).

dj_gitmo 1y ago

If they thought Iran had nukes they wouldn’t be attacking them. Nobody thinks Iran had a nuclear weapon, or that they are even trying that hard to get one.

trebligdivad 1y ago
I don't understand this argument; why would you have a large, acknowledged, underground nuclear purification unit if it wasn't for bombs? Why wouldn't you cooperate with their regular IAEA inspection if it wasn't for bombs?
- friendlyasparag 1y ago
  They might be making the bombs, but once they are made (and the delivery mechanism exists), then they wouldn’t be attacked for fear of nuclear retaliation. The past two-ish decades has made it clear that nuclear weapons are the only defense against an aggressive power arbitrarily invading.
  - ra0x3 1y ago
    This was my thinking as well. Iran sending a nuke at anyone effectively is the end of Iran (and many of its people). Something something…mutually assured destruction (e.g., North Korea has nukes, makes threats, doesn’t use them)
    - card_zero 1y ago
      So the reason to make an exception to the Non-Proliferation Treaty just for the giant tyrannical fundamentalist state is, what, because otherwise they might get insecure and anxious? OK, they never signed up to it, but still.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - amanaplanacanal 1y ago

nradov 1y ago

No one in the US government was claiming that Iran had nuclear weapons. The stated reason is that they were close to having nuclear weapons based on the current rate of uranium enrichment, anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. Of course we may never know whether that's really true.

1659447091 1y ago
> The stated reason is that they were close to having nuclear weapons No the US was claiming: "We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so." in it's 2025 Threat Assessment. The reports believes they were not working on them and Khamenei has the final authority to restart the program which he had not done. However, they believe there was growing pressured to do so. Trump just gave the guy reason to green light a weapons project he had so far not wanted. [pdf] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2025-Unclassified-Report.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-202...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

kelnos 1y ago

"Not close" doesn't mean they're not working on it. I think it's reasonable to expect that unspoken bit is "... but their current avenue of work is going to eventually succeed". I'm tired of the US playing puppetmaster (poorly) around the world, getting involved in conflicts that have nothing to do with us (or rather, creating conflicts when it has to do with access to oil or something). And it's not like we haven't messed up Iran enough already. But I do not want a nuclear-armed Iran to be a thing. If they were working on it and had a solid program that was likely to bear fruit, I hate to say it, but this was probably the right move. But this is a big "if"; I don't trust this administration to tell the truth about any of this, no more than I trusted Bush Jr when he said Iraq had nukes.

TeeMassive 1y ago

The predicate that Iran has them but would show restraint is the same that same that they don't have them but will show restraint and not use desperate measures like blowing up the entire Middle Eastern oil production and distribution network and ports and not use dirty bombs. Which shows how much of BS the pro-war argument was to begin with.

1659447091 1y ago

Another source, from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence[0] On that page you can download an unclassified 2025 Annual Threat Assessment [pdf] where on page 26 it states: >> We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so. In the past year, there has been an erosion of a decades-long taboo on discussing nuclear weapons in public that has emboldened nuclear weapons advocates within Iran’s decisionmaking apparatus. Khamenei remains the final decisionmaker over Iran’s nuclear program, to include any decision to develop nuclear weapons. I also think there is more reading in there that may interest people here. [0] https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2025/4058-2025-annual-threat-assessment https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/... [pdf] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2025-Unclassified-Report.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-202...

tripletao 1y ago
Leaving aside the accuracy of this claim, "building a weapon" here means "taking the uranium they've already enriched almost to weapons-grade, and completing final assembly into a working device". The nuclear physicists got the glory for the Manhattan Project, but the enrichment was the vast majority of the time and cost[1]. Similar ratios apply today. There is zero question that Iran's government is spending a significant fraction of its GDP on enrichment activity that would be economically absurd except as a step towards nuclear weapons--they acknowledge it proudly! That doesn't mean these strikes were necessarily a good idea. There's no question that Iran was working actively towards a bomb though, even if "building a weapon" gets redefined narrowly to exclude almost all the actual effort. 1. https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/05/17/the-price-of-the-manhattan-project/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/05/17/the-price-of-the-...
- skissane 1y ago
  I think a good way of explaining what the Iranian government has been doing, is actively working on reducing breakout time without actually making the breakout decision "Breakout time" is how long it takes a country between the political decision to build a nuclear weapon, and actually having one which is militarily usable

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

econ 1y ago

Bibi has repeatedly informed us the bomb would be ready in the next few months for 23 years or so. Saddam also had WMDs, we just don't know where. Etc

nsingh2 1y ago
He's been saying this since 1992, so 33 years so far.
- econ 1y ago
  What is the term for political leaders who fill their speeches with a Boogeyman rather than doing their job? I feel there should be a term for it. Ideally one that describes them in pairs. Like a boogey marriage.
jiggawatts 1y ago
"Will be done in 'x' months" vs "Could be ready within 'x' months" are distinct statements. My project managers often ask how long a project would take. I might say something like "two weeks after we're approved to start". The PMs will wait a few months, approve the project, and then look flabbergasted when it is not instantaneously completed! "But you had all this time! Months ago you said it would take weeks!"
krona 1y ago
> Saddam also had WMDs, we just don't know where. Presumably if Saddam had built a large reinforced concrete bunker deep in the side of a mountain hours from the nearest city, that might be a place fairly high on your checklist?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
birn559 1y ago
Israel has also been sabotaging their program and murdering scientists for the same time. Maybe it's an instance of the prevention paradox? Together with the fact that things sometimes naturally need MUCH more time than anticipated?

biglyburrito 1y ago

You would have thought folks would have learned from the Iraq War that the US lies. I'm no fan of Khomeini's sabre-rattling, but if people are really buying into the narrative that we did this because they had nukes, idk what to tell you besides go read your history.

_heimdall 1y ago
It isn't just the US that lies, its politicians and leaders. People in charge want to keep power, and the only ones willing to fight their way to the top don't deserve the power of office.
verisimi 1y ago
Folks do know. Folks knew before the Iraq war too. But what does this generic knowledge have to do with anything, when the military action is already decided for geo-political reasons? The only decision to make is what pretext to use. In a way, the 'iraq wmd' justification has proven it's value as a pretext - so why not tweak it and use it again?

eastbound 1y ago

Iran has “Death to America” as an hymn. It is commonly accepted that a nation directly threatening others of death deserves the war.

SillyUsername 1y ago
Funny you should say that. The US has Bomb Iran as a parody of Barbara Ann, available on CD: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_Iran https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_Iran So apparently it's humourous to kill. It's not like for like, but if you have a rabid population with low education being told to say stuff like this, they will, just because of social pressure and brainwashing. Related, example of that brainwashing at scale: - Killing people bad, but patriotic as a soldier. - Killing people fine on TV, procreational entertainment bad. - People told what to wear bad, but telling people they must be clothed, good. - Religion says no killing, or protect those not of the same religion. People still kill, seen as no conflict of interest at all. - Hording wealth seen as successful, yet society and the world has people suffering and illegal immigration as a consequence of not having it. - People who don't work are grifters, but most people secretly want to quit their job and not work. Told to see the non workers as people sponging off society. - Forced to work until your health fails, seen as acceptable. Point being, no moral high ground because we're all brainwashed.
- xdennis 1y ago
  > They chant "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" every week (on Fridays) in Iran led by the Iranian government. vs. > Some band in the USA wrote a song about bombing Iran in 1980. Yeah, those are completely equal.
netsharc 1y ago
Result 2 of 9 for "Death to America". Do you like it when people quote you out of context? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44342393

herbst 1y ago

It doesn't matter if it's true at this point. The US can not involve themself in every fucking war for their own motives, just by calling "Bombs" they did this a few times to often. I really hope this is going to have consequences for orange man.

samrus 1y ago

if iran had nukes, israel and america wouldnt have dared bomb it. iran wasnt even close, and they must be kicking themselves for that now