7 ms·
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.
by 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 agoFlies 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 ago60% 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 agoExcept 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 agoWhen 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 agoThe 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 agoNo, 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 agoEverything 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.
- twothreeone 1y agoWikipedia points to a source that says it is used for parts of a multi-stage fusion bomb: > Uranium with enrichments ranging from 40% to 80% U-235 has been used in large amounts in U.S. thermonuclear weapons as a yield-boosting jacketing material for the secondary fusion stage Source: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html#nfaq6.2 http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html#nfaq6.2
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoAh yes, alongside the weapons grade steel and weapons grade copper.
- Retric 1y agoThere’s no minimum qualification for steel to be useful in a bomb, there is for uranium which this meets.
- mindslight 1y agoJust to be clear, this isn't "useful [to make] a bomb" - it's useful in a thermonuclear warhead that already has a primary fission stage using the originally-mentioned highly enriched weapons grade uranium, plus a second fusion stage that (as far as I'm aware) Iran is not working to develop. edit: phrasing. it feels like we're going around in circles nitpicking based on a poor framing and the tendency for innuendo on this topic
- Retric 1y agoYou might want to rephrase that as a thermonuclear warhead is obviously a bomb making it “useful in a bomb.” Also, you can use 60% enriched uranium in the primary stage at the cost of a much larger, less efficient, and dirty device.
- 05 1y ago> plus a second fusion stage that (as far as I'm aware) Iran is not working to develop. All modern nukes are two stage designs, Iran would be insane not to have a fusion stage. It would basically be a Hiroshima style dirty bomb with just 1.5% fissible mass actually fissioned.
- hollerith 1y ago60% 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 agoBut 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 agoThis 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 agoIAEA 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 agoWeapons grade Uranium is over 90% purity. 60% is just a stepping stone towards 90%.
- busterarm 1y agoYou only get to 60% on the road to 90%. At 60% it has no other useful purpose.
- lamontcg 1y agoThat'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 agoSure, 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 agoIt 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 agoAre 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 agoTheir story is a desire to build reactors for when the oil runs out. Energy security
- dralley 1y agoNobody builds reactors with 60% enriched uranium
- wombatpm 1y agoThat’s what their story is.
- Qem 1y agoWell, 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 agoor.... they were in the process of building bombs. (or what you said, but probably bombs).