3 ms·
Fuel 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 kee
by ohazi 1y ago
Fuel 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.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoThe parent comment says it flies in the face of the US IC's holistic assessment of Iran's efforts. Which it does.