3 ms·

It's my suspicion that most of the 60% enriched material was moved prior to the attack(Edit: which recent statements from Iran seem to support), and now undergo

It's my suspicion that most of the 60% enriched material was moved prior to the attack(Edit: which recent statements from Iran seem to support), and now undergoing enrichment to 90% in a facility the US doesn't know about. Enrichment gets easier as the percentage goes up. I expect (ok, I WORRY) a major US city to have a nuke set off in it by Iran within the next 5 years. It didn't have to be this way, we had a working treaty and inspections regime until Trump pulled us out of it. Decades of effort to prohibit nuclear proliferation have just gone down the toilet. EDIT: Ya'll are right, the idea of them doing a test and going public makes a lot more sense.

klipt 1y ago
> I expect a major US city to have a nuke set off in it by Iran within the next 5 years. Why would Iran do something so suicidal?
roughly 1y ago
> I expect a major US city to have a nuke set off in it by Iran within the next 5 years. This absolutely will not happen. Iran will make a nuke, and they will test it very publicly, and then the political math in the Middle East changes overnight. The point of a nuclear bomb for a country like Iran (or Pakistan, or North Korea) is deterrence, not attack - if Iran set off a nuke in an American city, the regime would not survive, and it’s possible the country would not. Edit: to put that differently, the only way an Iranian bomb goes off in an American city is if an American bomb goes off in an Iranian city.
- mensetmanusman 1y ago
  “ The point of a nuclear bomb for a country like Iran (or Pakistan, or North Korea) is deterrence” I hope this is true, but Iran has a hard time convincing people because their theocratic elements are suicidal from a secular standpoint. Eg their religious messaging is confounding.
  - krainboltgreene 1y ago
    I think you have a typo, you wrote “Iran” instead of “the United States”.
- invalidname 1y ago
  You are lumping together three very different countries into a western mindset of deterrence. While Pakistan is Muslim they are not the same as Iran in any way. The current rulers of Iran do not operate by western logic and would be consider a "holy death" as a direct path to heaven. Iranian populace isn't behind that, the people themselves are reasonably secular and aren't behind that. However, the leadership is dangerous and you should not assume they would use western logic.
- hajile 1y ago
  This is where the logic stops. If Iran is going to behave logically with a nuke, then why is it so terrible for them to have one? If they are illogical, then why would they NOT choose to wipe out Israel and blow up a couple major US cities? The arguments I hear about Iran are almost completely contradictory.
r14c 1y ago
I really don't understand why the US didn't continue their talks with Iran. They were clearly open to joining a non-proliferation treaty at the time. They also have a religious law against developing nukes in addition to their other tentative agreements and cooperation with IAEA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against_nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against... I don't expect Iran to use any nukes that they develop though. Having nukes puts a country in a special diplomatic class. Using them is almost never beneficial. The status quo risks for nuclear programs is stronger sovereignty, which would drastically shift the regional balance of power and possibly tip the scales on a broad international level.
- IAmGraydon 1y ago
  You are assuming they’re rational actors, and extremist religious ideologies are by their very nature irrational.
  - all_factz 1y ago
    Iran has shown itself a rational actor time and time again by not escalating against continued provocation by Israel and the US, knowing that to do so would be to enter a conflict it can’t win. That’s not the behavior of an irrational actor who’s willing to fight whatever the cost, even total annihilation (which would be what happened if Iran nuked the US/Israel). They may be religious fanatics, but they’re not idiots.
    - margalabargala 1y ago
      Iran funded Hamas who did October 7th. That is the original escalation that kicked all this off. The region was (relatively) quiet until then.
      - all_factz 1y ago
        October 7th was a reaction to Trump’s “Abraham Accords” which benefitted Sunni countries at the expense of Iran.
PeterHolzwarth 1y ago
I don't think this makes much sense, due to the scale of the two parties: Iran somehow figuring out how to get a nuke onto a US city would invite complete and total annihilation of Iran -- and the world would largely support it. Iran knows this. Nukes among peers aren't there to be used. They are there to immobilize and freeze a layer of conflict.
IAmGraydon 1y ago
Do you really think that they wouldn’t have done this by now if they could?
jimbob45 1y ago
I had the same expectation myself but now everyone will be looking out for that type of attack.
_zagj 1y ago
> I expect (ok, I WORRY) a major US city to have a nuke set off in it by Iran within the next 5 years. It's strange how this "Sum of All Fears" scenario is dismissed out of hand, or doesn't even occur, to the tankie-types on HN and reddit rooting for the Ayatollah to cross the nuclear finish line--the same Supreme Leader who, three days ago, permitted large protests in Tehran where crowds chanted "Death to America" and burned US flags. Even weirder is that many (most?) of them are urban types who live, or aspire to live, in big cities like NYC or LA so they can enjoy the large LGBTQ communities, the ethnic restaurants, the bars serving craft IPAs, and the reduced commute times to and from protests. Hasan Piker, a prominent tankiefluencer, lives in LA, for example. So you would think they especially would have misgivings about Iran's enrichment program, even if they don't support intervention against it. And yet most of them dismiss any concern over it, or even outright state Iran should have nuclear weapons.
- 8note 1y ago
  as a sum of all fears, you should also be worrying much more that texas will drop a nuke in LA, and so the texas government needs to be wiped off the map, all texans included. local terror attacks are already a constant and accepted danger

klipt 1y ago

> I expect a major US city to have a nuke set off in it by Iran within the next 5 years. Why would Iran do something so suicidal?

roughly 1y ago

> I expect a major US city to have a nuke set off in it by Iran within the next 5 years. This absolutely will not happen. Iran will make a nuke, and they will test it very publicly, and then the political math in the Middle East changes overnight. The point of a nuclear bomb for a country like Iran (or Pakistan, or North Korea) is deterrence, not attack - if Iran set off a nuke in an American city, the regime would not survive, and it’s possible the country would not. Edit: to put that differently, the only way an Iranian bomb goes off in an American city is if an American bomb goes off in an Iranian city.

mensetmanusman 1y ago
“ The point of a nuclear bomb for a country like Iran (or Pakistan, or North Korea) is deterrence” I hope this is true, but Iran has a hard time convincing people because their theocratic elements are suicidal from a secular standpoint. Eg their religious messaging is confounding.
- krainboltgreene 1y ago
  I think you have a typo, you wrote “Iran” instead of “the United States”.
invalidname 1y ago
You are lumping together three very different countries into a western mindset of deterrence. While Pakistan is Muslim they are not the same as Iran in any way. The current rulers of Iran do not operate by western logic and would be consider a "holy death" as a direct path to heaven. Iranian populace isn't behind that, the people themselves are reasonably secular and aren't behind that. However, the leadership is dangerous and you should not assume they would use western logic.
hajile 1y ago
This is where the logic stops. If Iran is going to behave logically with a nuke, then why is it so terrible for them to have one? If they are illogical, then why would they NOT choose to wipe out Israel and blow up a couple major US cities? The arguments I hear about Iran are almost completely contradictory.

r14c 1y ago

I really don't understand why the US didn't continue their talks with Iran. They were clearly open to joining a non-proliferation treaty at the time. They also have a religious law against developing nukes in addition to their other tentative agreements and cooperation with IAEA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against_nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei%27s_fatwa_against... I don't expect Iran to use any nukes that they develop though. Having nukes puts a country in a special diplomatic class. Using them is almost never beneficial. The status quo risks for nuclear programs is stronger sovereignty, which would drastically shift the regional balance of power and possibly tip the scales on a broad international level.

IAmGraydon 1y ago
You are assuming they’re rational actors, and extremist religious ideologies are by their very nature irrational.
- all_factz 1y ago
  Iran has shown itself a rational actor time and time again by not escalating against continued provocation by Israel and the US, knowing that to do so would be to enter a conflict it can’t win. That’s not the behavior of an irrational actor who’s willing to fight whatever the cost, even total annihilation (which would be what happened if Iran nuked the US/Israel). They may be religious fanatics, but they’re not idiots.
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    Iran funded Hamas who did October 7th. That is the original escalation that kicked all this off. The region was (relatively) quiet until then.
    - all_factz 1y ago
      October 7th was a reaction to Trump’s “Abraham Accords” which benefitted Sunni countries at the expense of Iran.

PeterHolzwarth 1y ago

I don't think this makes much sense, due to the scale of the two parties: Iran somehow figuring out how to get a nuke onto a US city would invite complete and total annihilation of Iran -- and the world would largely support it. Iran knows this. Nukes among peers aren't there to be used. They are there to immobilize and freeze a layer of conflict.

IAmGraydon 1y ago

Do you really think that they wouldn’t have done this by now if they could?

jimbob45 1y ago

I had the same expectation myself but now everyone will be looking out for that type of attack.

_zagj 1y ago

> I expect (ok, I WORRY) a major US city to have a nuke set off in it by Iran within the next 5 years. It's strange how this "Sum of All Fears" scenario is dismissed out of hand, or doesn't even occur, to the tankie-types on HN and reddit rooting for the Ayatollah to cross the nuclear finish line--the same Supreme Leader who, three days ago, permitted large protests in Tehran where crowds chanted "Death to America" and burned US flags. Even weirder is that many (most?) of them are urban types who live, or aspire to live, in big cities like NYC or LA so they can enjoy the large LGBTQ communities, the ethnic restaurants, the bars serving craft IPAs, and the reduced commute times to and from protests. Hasan Piker, a prominent tankiefluencer, lives in LA, for example. So you would think they especially would have misgivings about Iran's enrichment program, even if they don't support intervention against it. And yet most of them dismiss any concern over it, or even outright state Iran should have nuclear weapons.

8note 1y ago
as a sum of all fears, you should also be worrying much more that texas will drop a nuke in LA, and so the texas government needs to be wiped off the map, all texans included. local terror attacks are already a constant and accepted danger