4 ms·

Do we have irrefutable evidence that Iran was that close to a nuke?

hackyhacky 1y ago
No. In fact, there is no (public) evidence at all.
hypeatei 1y ago
The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) released a report in May saying they enriched up to 60% U-235 at one of their facilities[0]. > As previously reported, on 5 December 2024, Iran started feeding the two IR-6 cascades producing UF6 enriched up to 60% U-235 at FFEP with UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235, rather than UF6 enriched up to 5% U-235, without altering the enrichment level of the product. The effect of this change has been to significantly increase the rate of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP to over 34 kg of uranium in the form of UF6 per month. 0: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...
- sodality2 1y ago
  60% is not weapons grade.
  - hypeatei 1y ago
    No, but it was a significant jump from what they had before. I'm not a fan of what is being done by Israel and the US, to be clear.
    - sodality2 1y ago
      True. Weapons grade in approximately 2 months was one estimate given by the Institute for Science and International Security.
      - throwaway2037 1y ago
        I have heard similar estimates. I think what is important: It is less than one year. That is pretty quick from the view of regional geopolitics. Here is a quote that I found from abc.net.au via Google: > According to the US Institute for Science and International Security, "Iran can convert its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into 233kg of weapon-grade uranium in three weeks at the Fordow plant", which it said would be enough for nine nuclear weapons. Putting on my black hat for moment: I think Iran's strategy to tip toe up to the line of weapons grade uranium is strategic genius. (Of course, I don't want them to have nuclear weapons!) It provides maximum deniability so they can get as many parts as close as possible before the final 12 months dash to get nuclear weapons.
  - dardeaup 1y ago
    Why would any country enrich uranium to 60% or more?
    - hwillis 1y ago
      Radiopharmaceuticals are enriched to 60%. Iran is one of the top producers in the world. Iran has a natural abundance of radioactive isotopes- the background radiation of spots in Iran is extremely high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran https://www.energy.gov/science/ip/articles/harnessing-power-uranium-treat-disease https://www.energy.gov/science/ip/articles/harnessing-power-... https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/04/08/723301/Iran-among-top-three-countries-in-manufacturing-radiopharmaceuticals--AEOI-head- https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/04/08/723301/Iran-among-t...
      - yyyk 1y ago
        Iran imports radiopharmaceuticals from Canada and that import was never restricted. Besides, radiopharmaceuticals are done with cyclotrons and do not require 60% HEU.
        hwillis 1y ago
        There are dozens of elements and isotopes used in radiopharmacology. Highly enriched uranium is absolutely one of them -hence why energy.gov is posting about it- and it's significantly cheaper than using a particle accelerator to create radioactive isotopes.
        yyyk 1y ago
        HEU is not directly used in radiopharmacology for obvious reasons, the energy.gov posting is about a non-fissile isotope of Uranium and not HEU. It's much cheaper to use a cyclotron than get massively sanctioned - unless you what you really want is a weapon.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      To negotiate back to a prior deal that was actually pretty great for all parties involved.
  - UltraSane 1y ago
    But weapons are the ONLY reason to enrich that high.
    - sodality2 1y ago
      Not true. Maybe the only plausible reason Iran has to make them, but that's a different claim.
    - throwaway2037 1y ago
      You raise a very good point here, probably the most important consideration if one wishes to defend Israel's and US's recent bombing of Iranian nuclear research sites. I don't know any legitimate civilian purpose to enrich uranium to near-weapons grade... except to eventually produce weapons grade material.
      - UltraSane 1y ago
        Honestly Iran NEVER needed to enrich uranium if it only wanted nuclear electricity. It could have imported enriched uranium fuel rods for its nuclear reactor. Spending so much on deeply buried enrichment facilities was ALWAYS about getting nuclear weapons.
        throwaway2037 1y ago
        Of course, it is insane to see so many people in this discussion plainly in denial about the intent of this programme.
        UltraSane 1y ago
        Many people on this thread are rather inexplicably pro-Iran-having-nukes.
  - adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
    the last bit of refinement is much easier than the initial bits. Natural abundance is 0.7%, so getting to 10% is about halfway to weapons grade and 60% is ~80-90% of the way there.
Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
The US only need to claim a country has 'weapons of mass destruction' to start a war. Evidence is not required.
- tbrownaw 1y ago
  Pretty sure the claim this time wasn't that they had them, but that they could make them too quickly if they wanted to.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
    'has them', 'could make them', it doesn't matter what the claim is when you there no requirement for evidence. There are no penalties for US presidents who lie to start a war.

No. In fact, there is no (public) evidence at all.

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) released a report in May saying they enriched up to 60% U-235 at one of their facilities[0]. > As previously reported, on 5 December 2024, Iran started feeding the two IR-6 cascades producing UF6 enriched up to 60% U-235 at FFEP with UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235, rather than UF6 enriched up to 5% U-235, without altering the enrichment level of the product. The effect of this change has been to significantly increase the rate of production of UF6 enriched up to 60% at FFEP to over 34 kg of uranium in the form of UF6 per month. 0: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/25/06/gov2025-24.pd...

sodality2 1y ago
60% is not weapons grade.
- hypeatei 1y ago
  No, but it was a significant jump from what they had before. I'm not a fan of what is being done by Israel and the US, to be clear.
  - sodality2 1y ago
    True. Weapons grade in approximately 2 months was one estimate given by the Institute for Science and International Security.
    - throwaway2037 1y ago
      I have heard similar estimates. I think what is important: It is less than one year. That is pretty quick from the view of regional geopolitics. Here is a quote that I found from abc.net.au via Google: > According to the US Institute for Science and International Security, "Iran can convert its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into 233kg of weapon-grade uranium in three weeks at the Fordow plant", which it said would be enough for nine nuclear weapons. Putting on my black hat for moment: I think Iran's strategy to tip toe up to the line of weapons grade uranium is strategic genius. (Of course, I don't want them to have nuclear weapons!) It provides maximum deniability so they can get as many parts as close as possible before the final 12 months dash to get nuclear weapons.
- dardeaup 1y ago
  Why would any country enrich uranium to 60% or more?
  - hwillis 1y ago
    Radiopharmaceuticals are enriched to 60%. Iran is one of the top producers in the world. Iran has a natural abundance of radioactive isotopes- the background radiation of spots in Iran is extremely high: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran https://www.energy.gov/science/ip/articles/harnessing-power-uranium-treat-disease https://www.energy.gov/science/ip/articles/harnessing-power-... https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/04/08/723301/Iran-among-top-three-countries-in-manufacturing-radiopharmaceuticals--AEOI-head- https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/04/08/723301/Iran-among-t...
    - yyyk 1y ago
      Iran imports radiopharmaceuticals from Canada and that import was never restricted. Besides, radiopharmaceuticals are done with cyclotrons and do not require 60% HEU.
      - hwillis 1y ago
        There are dozens of elements and isotopes used in radiopharmacology. Highly enriched uranium is absolutely one of them -hence why energy.gov is posting about it- and it's significantly cheaper than using a particle accelerator to create radioactive isotopes.
        yyyk 1y ago
        HEU is not directly used in radiopharmacology for obvious reasons, the energy.gov posting is about a non-fissile isotope of Uranium and not HEU. It's much cheaper to use a cyclotron than get massively sanctioned - unless you what you really want is a weapon.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    To negotiate back to a prior deal that was actually pretty great for all parties involved.
- UltraSane 1y ago
  But weapons are the ONLY reason to enrich that high.
  - sodality2 1y ago
    Not true. Maybe the only plausible reason Iran has to make them, but that's a different claim.
  - throwaway2037 1y ago
    You raise a very good point here, probably the most important consideration if one wishes to defend Israel's and US's recent bombing of Iranian nuclear research sites. I don't know any legitimate civilian purpose to enrich uranium to near-weapons grade... except to eventually produce weapons grade material.
    - UltraSane 1y ago
      Honestly Iran NEVER needed to enrich uranium if it only wanted nuclear electricity. It could have imported enriched uranium fuel rods for its nuclear reactor. Spending so much on deeply buried enrichment facilities was ALWAYS about getting nuclear weapons.
      - throwaway2037 1y ago
        Of course, it is insane to see so many people in this discussion plainly in denial about the intent of this programme.
        UltraSane 1y ago
        Many people on this thread are rather inexplicably pro-Iran-having-nukes.
- adgjlsfhk1 1y ago
  the last bit of refinement is much easier than the initial bits. Natural abundance is 0.7%, so getting to 10% is about halfway to weapons grade and 60% is ~80-90% of the way there.

Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago

The US only need to claim a country has 'weapons of mass destruction' to start a war. Evidence is not required.

tbrownaw 1y ago
Pretty sure the claim this time wasn't that they had them, but that they could make them too quickly if they wanted to.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 1y ago
  'has them', 'could make them', it doesn't matter what the claim is when you there no requirement for evidence. There are no penalties for US presidents who lie to start a war.