11 ms·

https://archive.is/20250623152635/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/us/politics/iran-uranium-stockpile-whereabouts.html https://archive.is/20250623152635/https

by _lvbh 1y ago

https://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 ago
  Other 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 ago
    This is probably wrong.
    - tonyedgecombe 1y ago
      Yes, support for Israel is already looking threadbare around most of the world.
      - platevoltage 1y ago
        Most of the world yes. Most of the world doesn't really matter.
- VBprogrammer 1y ago
  It'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 ago
    A nuclear strike on Jerusalem sounds untenable for religious reasons.
- platevoltage 1y ago
  Zero 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 ago
Layman'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 ago
    As per the story we're commenting on, whether they were successful in this mission or not is currently unknown.
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      The story is about the fate of the stockpile, not the processing equipment. That's even in the title of this thread.
      - radlad 1y ago
        I 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 ago
Because 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 ago
  That assumes a sane, well ordered USA. This particular attack falsified that hypothesis.
- axus 1y ago
  So far the USA hasn't stopped Israel from doing anything.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    How would we know if they did?
  - yread 1y ago
    You 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 ago
  I think we are past Israel really caring about catastrophic consequences.
psunavy03 1y ago
You do understand that there's a reason no one has used nukes in combat since World War II, right? . . . right??
- platevoltage 1y ago
  Are we really trying to make a point that Israel cares about civilian casualties?
  - psunavy03 1y ago
    We'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 ago
Lack 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 ago
Iranian 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 ago
  Any country that drops nukes on Israel is going to become the US’s next target. I can’t see Pakistan wanting that.
  - Tadpole9181 1y ago
    For 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 ago
Why would they escalate to nukes when they can already fly over Tehran and bomb things at will?
mensetmanusman 1y ago
Because MAD works when people care about their life.
- vidarh 1y ago
  Mad 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 ago
    Reagan 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 ago
What'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 ago
  You'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 ago
    All 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 ago
  Yeah totally. Have you seen Hiroshima lately? Total wasteland.

by _lvbh 1y ago

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 ago
Other 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 ago
  This is probably wrong.
  - tonyedgecombe 1y ago
    Yes, support for Israel is already looking threadbare around most of the world.
    - platevoltage 1y ago
      Most of the world yes. Most of the world doesn't really matter.
VBprogrammer 1y ago
It'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 ago
  A nuclear strike on Jerusalem sounds untenable for religious reasons.
platevoltage 1y ago
Zero 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 ago

Layman'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 ago
  As per the story we're commenting on, whether they were successful in this mission or not is currently unknown.
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    The story is about the fate of the stockpile, not the processing equipment. That's even in the title of this thread.
    - radlad 1y ago
      I 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 ago

Because 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 ago
That assumes a sane, well ordered USA. This particular attack falsified that hypothesis.
axus 1y ago
So far the USA hasn't stopped Israel from doing anything.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  How would we know if they did?
- yread 1y ago
  You 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 ago
I think we are past Israel really caring about catastrophic consequences.

psunavy03 1y ago

You do understand that there's a reason no one has used nukes in combat since World War II, right? . . . right??

platevoltage 1y ago
Are we really trying to make a point that Israel cares about civilian casualties?
- psunavy03 1y ago
  We'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 ago

Lack 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 ago

Iranian 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 ago
Any country that drops nukes on Israel is going to become the US’s next target. I can’t see Pakistan wanting that.
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  For 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 ago

Why would they escalate to nukes when they can already fly over Tehran and bomb things at will?

mensetmanusman 1y ago

Because MAD works when people care about their life.

vidarh 1y ago
Mad 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 ago
  Reagan 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 ago

What'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 ago
You'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 ago
  All 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 ago
Yeah totally. Have you seen Hiroshima lately? Total wasteland.