4 ms·
60% enrichment level is significantly higher than what’s required for peaceful purposes. To say that it’s not weapons grade is just disingenuous.
by 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 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.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoBeing able to produce weapons grade uranium != producing weapons grade uranium. It's not that complicated. And yes, in an alternative universe where delivery systems also just appear out of nowhere, you could sprinkle a million tons of 1% uranium over a city.
- Retric 1y agoIt’s not about delivery systems just appearing, the logistics of tossing around nuclear weapons in the Middle East using modern technology allows for a vastly larger bombs without significant issues. Little boy was a logistical issue at the time but only 4,400 kg. You can buy a used A380 for a few 10’s of millions. Convert that to a drone is fairly cheap, and you end up with a vastly cheaper system than the cost of producing a nuclear bomb. Obviously a subsonic aircraft isn’t ideal, but historic ICBM’s ended up being designed for multiple bombs that’s a lot of leeway if you use the same system to deliver a single bomb. What the US considered weapons grade in the 40’s through the Cold War is based on assumptions that simply don’t apply here.
- ohazi 1y agoFuel grade is like 3%. It's exponentially harder to go from 3%-60% (months-years) than 60%-90%(days-weeks). So no, the only reason to enrich that high is to keep your breakout time threateningly short.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoWhich still, astonishingly, does not make it weapons grade.
- Ancapistani 1y agoTrue, but can you name a reason to create a stockpile of 60% enriched uranium that doesn't involve weapons?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoYep! Negotiation.
- nothrabannosir 1y agoYes brother you are technically correct about that substring of that comment. “Weapons-grade” was indeed not 100% accurate and therefore, technically , inaccurate. That is true, you are right. That same comment also said, even led with “flies in the face of”. That was the most important part of the comment: ‘saying that Iran is enriching weapons-grade uranium “flies in the face of” intelligence reports which reported no weapons-grade uranium.’ But that part was not correct: the difference between Iran’s uranium (60% enriched) and weapons-grade uranium, while >0, is not large enough to characterize that assessment “flying in the face of”. So yes if you focus on that substring of the comment you are right. But why would you? It’s not the point of the comment. Which makes it nit picking. Which is why you’re getting so much pushback.
- 1y ago
- 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.