15 ms·
Officials concede they don't know the fate of Iran's uranium stockpile
- _lvbh 1y agohttps://archive.is/20250623152635/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/us/politics/iran-uranium-stockpile-whereabouts.html https://archive.is/20250623152635/https://www.nytimes.com/20... I'm honestly surprised Israel hasn't used its nukes yet. Against non-nuclear nation, there isn't really much threat of retaliation. Given how much Iran has already suffered, they'd be stupid to not try & get nukes. If even North Korea can get them, it can't be that hard. Also, I wonder if Iran really has that much uranium or if it's another Iraq WMD situation again considering the lack of radiation leakage and all
- IAmGraydon 1y ago>Against non-nuclear nation, there isn't really much threat of retaliation. There is from the rest of the world. Israel needs the west on its side. Using nukes would guarantee that support would end, which would make them extremely vulnerable.
- throaway42df8 1y agoOther than strong condemnation, there would be zero consequences and no effect on west's support to Israel, if Israel would to use nuclear weapons on Iran.
- mensetmanusman 1y agoThis is probably wrong.
- tonyedgecombe 1y agoYes, support for Israel is already looking threadbare around most of the world.
- platevoltage 1y agoMost of the world yes. Most of the world doesn't really matter.
- VBprogrammer 1y agoIt's not clear there is anything Israel could do which would elicit more than strong, but carefully chosen, words of condemnation from the west. Certainly Nuclear strikes against Iran would be a huge overreach. But no other country is going to retaliate with a Nuclear strike on Israel. If for no other reason than it would certainly lead the US deploying its nuclear arsenal. Especially with the current administration, no one would count on them choosing a path of de-escalation.
- olddustytrail 1y agoA nuclear strike on Jerusalem sounds untenable for religious reasons.
- platevoltage 1y agoZero chance that the USA would abandon them in this scenario. We couldn't even get a Democratic President to even stop funding them during a genocide. We watched the "left" cable news station get rid of their most progressive voice for speaking out against it, in the same way they did back in the Iraq war days.
- nemomarx 1y agoLayman's impression, but it seems like Iran has been holding onto stockpiles and deliberately not going all the way to weapons grade, probably to navigate around the threat of us invasion or similar in the time between them getting that and credibly weaponizing it. Recent events may push them to rush it though, if they still have the facilities.
- onlyrealcuzzo 1y ago> if they still have the facilities. Wasn't the entire point of this that now they don't have the facilities?
- radlad 1y agoAs per the story we're commenting on, whether they were successful in this mission or not is currently unknown.
- IAmBroom 1y agoThe story is about the fate of the stockpile, not the processing equipment. That's even in the title of this thread.
- radlad 1y agoI believe you are mistaken. While the title is correct, it is also incomplete. One of the sites bombed was Fordo, the enrichment plant. > Satellite photographs of the primary target, the Fordo uranium enrichment plant that Iran built under a mountain, showed several holes where a dozen 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators — one of the largest conventional bombs in the U.S. arsenal — punched deep holes in the rock. The Israeli military’s initial analysis concluded that the site, the target of American and Israeli military planners for more than 26 years, sustained serious damage from the strike but had not been completely destroyed. The article goes on to discuss how this is only initial analysis and that additionally equipment may have been moved prior to bombing.
- foepys 1y agoBecause it would have catastrophic consequences on the world order. Normalizing nuking your opponent will invite Russia to nuke Ukraine, China Taiwan, and North Korea South Korea. The USA will not let Israel nuke anybody.
- bediger4000 1y agoThat assumes a sane, well ordered USA. This particular attack falsified that hypothesis.
- axus 1y agoSo far the USA hasn't stopped Israel from doing anything.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoHow would we know if they did?
- yread 1y agoYou mean when they said "Israel shouldn't attack" and then sent them 20.000 missiles and tons of other supplies for war and then they attacked?
- platevoltage 1y agoI think we are past Israel really caring about catastrophic consequences.
- psunavy03 1y agoYou do understand that there's a reason no one has used nukes in combat since World War II, right? . . . right??
- platevoltage 1y agoAre we really trying to make a point that Israel cares about civilian casualties?
- psunavy03 1y agoWe're trying to make a point that there's a reason that even pariah states like North Korea have not nuked people since the end of WWII. You don't just casually look at a problem and say "oh, why haven't they thrown a nuclear warhead at it?"
- zamadatix 1y agoLack of a nuclear response from the target country, if it could even be guaranteed, is not the same thing as lack of retaliation. Even the non-nuclear response from current allies would be devastating for Israel's security.
- tantalor 1y agoIranian general said, > Pakistan has assured Iran that if Israel uses nuclear weapons, Pakistan will retaliate with nuclear strikes as well. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/pakistan-will-attack-israel-with-nuclear-missile-top-iranian-official-can-shaheen-3-reach-tel-aviv/articleshow/121873943.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/pakist... But who knows if that's true or not.
- tonyedgecombe 1y agoAny country that drops nukes on Israel is going to become the US’s next target. I can’t see Pakistan wanting that.
- Tadpole9181 1y agoFor important context, Pakistan is Iran's neighbor. Can you not see why nukes in Iran is a concern? And if Israel could use a nuke without nuclear retaliation in turn, they would proceed to annihilate half a continent. Once you get hit, it's far too late to retaliate. Pakistan is establishing preemptive MAD in defense of barrier states, because if Israel does this, they're effectively already dead; they'll have nothing to lose. Israel can call it a bluff, but I personally think they're serious. As a final consideration, if Israel drops nukes on Iran and is retaliated upon, the US is absolutely not going to start a global thermonuclear war and end all of humanity on their behest. Nor would China ever allow the US to get away with an counter invasion of Pakistan, leaving little other option.
- khuey 1y agoWhy would they escalate to nukes when they can already fly over Tehran and bomb things at will?
- mensetmanusman 1y agoBecause MAD works when people care about their life.
- vidarh 1y agoMad requires both sides to 1) be rational, 2) believe the other side is rational. Neither is a safe assumption. It's fundamentally always been messed up. Even Reagan realised that.
- bigyabai 1y agoReagan was president after a 50 year stint of nutjobs running the White House without nuking anyone. His failure to negotiate strategic arms reduction isn't somehow justified because the world sucks 20 years in the future.
- myth_drannon 1y agoWhat's the point? Persians are friendly towards Israel, it's the religious loonies that hold the power, and they can't be eliminated even with many nuclear strikes. As an armchair internet analyst like myself, I'm 100% sure Iran has nukes just no good delivery mechanism. The few missiles they bought from NK that could have delivered a nuke, they used to randomly shoot at Israel. The closest Israel came to using nukes was in `73 when it looked like it was about to be overrun by Arab armies on multiple fronts and also many suggested it should have dropped it on Gaza on Oct 7, but that would be seriously stupid even just for revenge, since you can't repopulate the area later.
- megous 1y agoYou're sick, if you think the only reason to not drop nuke on Gaza would be that Israel would not be able to steal the nuked land later on. You're also full of it talking about Iran's rocket forces. Lookup eg. "Deep Dive Defense" on YT.
- platevoltage 1y agoAll this poster would need to do is compare photos of modern day Hiroshima to modern day Pripyat to realize how absurd of a statement that was.
- platevoltage 1y agoYeah totally. Have you seen Hiroshima lately? Total wasteland.
- zzzeek 1y agofirst page of Sun Tzu, "Don't Tweet To The World that You're About to Attack"
- thatguy0900 1y agoThe world of warfare sun tzu planned for is pretty different. Now the real war for western nations is maintaining public support for the war, not actually winning the war. Dropping fliers and tweets that you are about to bomb the area before you drop the bombs is pretty common
- kayodelycaon 1y agoWhen you have total dominance over an opponent, you don’t need the rules of war. What you need is someone who understands politics. We have forgotten the advice of the great Theodore Roosevelt: “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. There is no stick bigger than the US military and it’s been shoved up our own ass by our politicians.
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y agoThat's only in the Kindle edition.
- IAmBroom 1y agoOfficials Concede They Don't Know The Unknowable
- tantalor 1y agoOh it's certainly knowable. It's a known unknown. You could imagine all sorts of ways we could find out, from detectors to informants.
- mensetmanusman 1y agoLike traveling inside the plasma of a sun is knowable but difficult.
- lostmsu 1y agoDifficult is exactly the right term here. Neutrinos do it all the time, we just need to catch them. First done in 1998 according to light googling.
- adfm 1y agoIsn’t the American Congress responsible for declaring war on other countries? This brings up the uncomfortable discussion of how to correct CEO overreach and insure accountability. Where does the buck stop when it’s passed around like a hot potato?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- rhcom2 1y agoUSA hasn't formally declared war since 1942. The Executive just continues to expand its power.
- msgodel 1y agoI assumed Vietnam and Korea were officially declared but after looking it up I see they weren't. It's kind of crazy they even managed to draft people without congress approving it. The world wars really did kill the old American system of government.
- nradov 1y agoCongress did approve the draft with the Military Selective Service Act of 1967.
- BobaFloutist 1y agoIn all fairness, Congress is slow by design, and wars happen a lot faster than they used to. It would be insane if a hypothetical adversary could prevent the US from engaging in war just by preventing a Congressional quorum. Presidential powers are certainly too broad and too deep, but I don't think a country can function in 2025 with the system the founders envisioned - shit just moves too fast these days.
- msgodel 1y agoI think if we actually had a good reason to be fighting congress would act quickly enough and a state that can't find enough consensus to even defend itself shouldn't exist at all. It all seems fine to me.
- daft_pink 1y agoPretty sure that many governments around the world have pretty advanced monitoring equipment capable of tracking the movements of nuclear material. Just sayin’. I’m sure they aren’t telegraphing capabilities, but aren’t monitoring devices trained on iran nuclear sites that have been in place for decades. The intelligence value alone of knowing where materials are going would be so valuable that this has to be in place.
- ceejayoz 1y agoTrump canceled the deal that included monitoring. The Iranians, as you’d expect, disabled those in response. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...
- phreeza 1y agoWhat kind of monitoring are you thinking? Uranium is primarily an alpha emitter, and as such very easy to shield. I don't think it could be tracked from a distance.
- ceejayoz 1y agoWe had cameras and other devices installed under the old nuclear deal. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/iran-removing-27-un-cameras-monitoring-nuclear-activity-possible-fatal-rcna32780 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/iran-remo... > It appeared Iran intended to remove the bulk of the cameras and other monitoring gear installed as part of the 2015 nuclear agreement between Tehran and world powers, according to Grossi. Without cameras in place, Iran could divert centrifuges used for uranium enrichment to other unknown locations, he said.
- cameldrv 1y agoMaybe antineutrinos. There has been a fair bit of work on detectors in the past couple of decades.
- 1y ago
- mensetmanusman 1y agoI wonder if they use comsol to model destroying mountains.
- siliconc0w 1y agoThis was the most telegraphed attack in history of warfare. Trump was tweeting about it, we were moving troops and planes, even specifics of the attack plan were discussed ahead of time. There are satellite photographs of them lining up trucks. I wouldn't be surprised if they cut up and moved the centrifuges. 1000% they moved the uranium.
- tonyedgecombe 1y agoThat could have been part of the plan, if they thought the site was impenetrable then warning about an attack would encourage Iran to move the material somewhere more accessible to American weapons.
- IAmBroom 1y agoHahaha, "the plan". As if they had one, beyond bumping tomorrow's poll numbers.
- reverendsteveii 1y ago>the most telegraphed attack in history of warfare Strictly speaking I think it was Signal'd. It may also have been WhatsApp'd if that wasn't banned yet.
- 1234letshaveatw 1y agoSounds like the picture is getting clearer now https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/06/23/us-iran-nuclear-fordo-mullin-intelligence.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/06/23/us-iran-nuclear-fordo-mu...
- croes 1y agoMoving it would have exposed it as an easy target
- adonovan 1y ago"We have the ability to destroy things that people think were undestroyable. And so we think we did a really good job." Truest thing ever said by a Trump spokesmodel!
- techpineapple 1y agoOur intelligence didn't know that Iran was trying to build a Nuclear Bomb, so we had to do this attack, but now our intelligence definetly knows: 'They are claiming that they moved some material," Mullin said, referring to Israel and Iran, respectively. "Our intelligence report says they didn't," the Oklahoma Republican said in an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box."
- PaulDavisThe1st 1y ago> Our intelligence didn't know that Iran was trying to build a Nuclear Bomb No, our intelligence services said they were not trying to build a nuclear bomb.
- techpineapple 1y agoCorrect, I was alluding to the inconsistency in the administrative's messaging.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- diego_moita 1y agoRemember when the Bush administration burned 2 trillion dollars and more than 100 000 lives because Iraq had "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that they never had? Yep, we're back at it again. Latin Americans have a name for it: "Imperialismo Americano".
- ljsprague 1y agoDoesn't that just mean American imperialism?
- diego_moita 1y agoYep, but people look at it in different ways. It feels different, depending on how it affects you. In English, "America imperialism" is a phrase for political propaganda, like "woke", "freedom", etc. You can argue if it makes sense or not. You can disagree if it exists. It is an opinion. In Latin America it is a fact of life, like rain and sunshine. It is there, everyone knows. No one denies it.
- schmookeeg 1y agoYeso, Exactlyo :D
- Analemma_ 1y agoIt's honestly incredible how we've learned absolutely nothing. I thought for sure that universally-agreed-upon catastrophe of Iraq would cause the lesson to stick, but no, we're running through the same playbook word-for-word. Including the goose-stepping support of the media: go to the homepage of "liberal" publications like The Atlantic right now and you can see full-throated support of the war and them discovering how much they love Trump now.
- jopsen 1y agoWhat do you even get from destroying it? Can you stop them from rebuilding? It seems like all Trump does is to burn the cards that the US spent decades collection.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoWhat you get is that you destroy their existing stockpile. They can rebuild, but it takes them longer after they rebuild.
- slt2021 1y agotheir stockpile of enriched uranium is ~400kg, they had plenty of time to move it (400kg of uranium is 28 cubic cm or a half of an airline carry-on luggage bag) upd: corrected the weight from 100 to 400kg
- IAmGraydon 1y agoIt's 400 kg.
- CamperBob2 1y agoDifficulty: if you put 400 kg of 60% U-235 in an airline flight bag, the rest of your day is going to go downhill in a hurry. I'd imagine you'd need at least a few trucks to move that stuff from point A to point B.
- mupuff1234 1y agoIf they stopped it once why do you think they can't stop it again? And it should be easier if you do it earlier in the rebuilding phase.
- andrewmcwatters 1y agoDo you think anyone is buying larger volumes of metal than usual right now and sheltering it, or that maybe individuals and organizations that would need to are still seeking existing supplies of low-background steel?
- ioa8w35l8aw 1y agoIn October, my family in texas was raving about how trump was going to end the Ukraine war overnight. They stopped talking about it the day trump retook office. And the other day they stopped talking about peace entirely and started raving about how Iran has had it coming and a little bit of war is good for the economy. They did the exact same thing in 2002.
- cypherpunks01 1y ago"Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after I win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled," Trump told a National Guard Conference. "I’ll get it settled very fast. I don’t want you guys going over there."
- msgodel 1y ago[flagged]
- Hilift 1y agoWhy end it? Ukraine is the most successful proxy war in the history of war. Ukraine has destroyed much of Russian ground forces and armor, and eliminated the only advantage that Russia did have, which was artillery. Now artillery accounts for only 20% of casualties on the battlefield. Even if the war ended today, Russia will not receive any of their funds frozen in Europe for decades, if ever. Russia has no military or technology advantage, and no way to rebuild it. Europe is safer than it ever has been.
- ImJamal 1y ago> Why end it? Because it is resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands Ukrainians? It is easy to tell other people to go die for you.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoYeah? It's easy to tell other people to just let their country get overrun, too. Ukrainians do not want to be owned by Russia. Ukraine is being invaded by Russia. Why end it, if "ending it" means Ukraine gets taken over by Russia, and the people of Ukraine do not want that?
- croes 1y agoIs this the Trump version of „Mission accomplished“?
- platevoltage 1y agoHe literally used the phrase in the same way the gun nuts still say "thoughts and prayers" after school shootings. It's super weird to go through life watching people's context window (I hate myself for using this term) get smaller as they get older, while I'm over here like "Haven't we been here before?"
- cypherpunks01 1y agoSomeone should really investigate what happened to the 15-year Iran nuclear agreement that set limits on stockpile size and enrichment levels, and allowed international inspector verification.
- TiredOfLife 1y agoYou mean the one Iran was constantly breaking and refusing access to inspectors?
- jraby3 1y agoI really thought Iran was breaking the deal too. Just did a google search and found articles from politico and AP fact checking and it seemed that Iran was complying with the deal. Do you have any links or relevant sources to show that they weren't?
- stickfigure 1y agoHere's a good timeline: https://chatgpt.com/share/6859c708-e53c-8002-bbdb-14150cb4d038 https://chatgpt.com/share/6859c708-e53c-8002-bbdb-14150cb4d0... The upshot is that the US terminated the deal in 2019 and then the Iranians started "racing" for a bomb. Before you think the nuclear deal was good, I have to ask: Do you think it's ok for a nation to get sanctions relief, even though they are being a bad actor on the world stage, just in return for "not making a bomb"? It seems a bit like holding the world hostage. There are other ways to stop the bomb program, as we have now seen. The diplomatic solution grants Iran permission to destabilize the region by funding Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. I'm pretty ok bombing hostile religious fanatics trying to develop nuclear weapons. It doesn't feel good but sometimes we have to do things that don't feel good.
- crazygringo 1y ago> Do you think it's ok for a nation to get sanctions relief, even though they are being a bad actor on the world stage, just in return for "not making a bomb" Lots of nations are "bad actors" in lots of ways. And sanctions come in many different shapes and sizes. So yes, it is absolutely OK to sanction a country more because they are building a nuclear bomb, and then remove those extra sanctions if they stop. Sanctions aren't all-or-nothing. The whole idea is that the more you go along with international norms, the less you're sanctioned. Otherwise they wouldn't work to change behavior, because change is always a matter of degrees. Iran isn't going to become Switzerland overnight. That's not how countries work.
- bawolff 1y agoAs long as its only 60% enriched, it probably doesn't matter much as long as the enrichment facility was taken out so they can't process it further.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoAt least we think the facility was taken out. We still don't really know.
- perihelions 1y agoThe unfortunate asterisk is that enriching from 60% to 90% takes comparatively little time and equipment. We're not absolutely certain there isn't another small, yet-undiscovered, secret enrichment plant. Here's highly-cited nuclear weapons expert Jeffrey Lewis: > "Let's say Iran decides to rush a bomb. Iran can install ~1.5 cascades a week. In six weeks, it could have 9 cascades of IR-6 machines. It would take those machines about 60 days to enrich all 400 kg to WGU. Altogether that's about five months although IMMV." https://bsky.app/profile/armscontrolwonk.bsky.social/post/3lsagielkcc2l https://bsky.app/profile/armscontrolwonk.bsky.social/post/3l...
- sherburt3 1y agoWe should ask the Iranian government, they might know.
- bananapub 1y agoman, I wonder if putting the dumbest, laziest and most selfish fucking people in America in charge of America might have any negative consequences for anyone.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoBut they didn't cc a journalist before the strike!
- inasio 1y agoFor reference, 400 kg of Uranium amounts to 21 liters, or a little over 5 gallons
- kube-system 1y agoIf it's in a solid metallic form.
- perihelions 1y agoOr 80 liters in the form of UF₆ (which it probably is). About half of an oil barrel. You wouldn't put it all in a single barrel of course: that would explode.
- IAmBroom 1y agoPedantically, it would melt.
- neverusingagain 1y ago[flagged]
- chasd00 1y agoGiven the thoroughness of Israel's intelligence on Iran I doubt it would have been moved without detection. Even if they did manage to move it, the moment enrichment starts back up it will just be bombed again. If it looks like a new facility is being built even deeper underground then that will just be bombed before it starts up. Without air defenses Iran doesn't have a lot of options and Gaza has shown putting an enrichment facility in the basement of a school/hospital isn't going to stop a bombing either. I'm not a military strategist but to me it seems like Iran's first priority before anything else is regaining control of their own skies.
- trhway 1y agoThat is why my bet is that no-fly zone is coming. It is already de-facto there, and just needs official announcement and commitment of resources.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoIs Israel going to enforce it from the other side of Iraq? Or is the US going to do it from bases in Iran's frenemy territories?
- trhway 1y agoOf course Israel wouldn't be able to it on its own. I think the 3 US aircraft carrier fleets around will do the job.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoThat would explain the Nimitz heading over there. And answer the question of if there will be additional American involvement.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoIsrael needed the US involved more than it needs to destroy any particular equipment. Even if their intelligence indicated it moved, they'd absolutely still tell Trump that he needed to bring the B-2s down on Fordo. Give the guy a finish line to carry the baton over, even if you already know it's not actually the finish line.