5 ms·

> it was never about nuclear weapons The only reason to enrich uranium to 60% like Iran was doing is for nuclear weapons purposes.

halflife 8mo ago
And burying your facilities under a mountain is not suspect at all
- pydry 8mo ago
  Not especially. Their other facilities were being bombed routinely by Israel (along with infrastructure).
  - halflife 8mo ago
    So they have medical grade uranium facility under a mountain? If that’s all they need, wouldn’t it be easier to just purchase it from a third party instead of investing billions of dollars hiding from Israel?
    - pydry 8mo ago
      They have a military base under a mountain, not a uranium enrichment facility. Building military defenses against crazed, genocidal, racial supremacists who routinely fire missiles at your country seems more like sensible forward planning to me rather than evidence of a guilty conscience.
pseingatl 8mo ago
True. Medical needs require only a lower percentage. I don't know if Iran was planning any fission reactors.
tsimionescu 8mo ago
That's not the point. The point is that the attacks on Iran are not about the nuclear weapons. Iran entered the JCPOA and complied with it, it had completely suspended any nuclear weapons program. But that didn't matter for Israel and their sycophants in US foreign policy, because for them the nuclear weapons program is at best only one part of the problem. Their real problem is that Iran is an independent state in the region that refuses to accept Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of Lebanon, and that refuses to comply with US policies more broadly. Overall the goal is not to stop Iran's nuclear program, though that is part of it. The goal would be to install a government in Iran that is friendly to Israel and the USA, or, failing that, to completely destroy their economy and defense such that they effectively can't act outside their own borders.
- tome 8mo ago
  > Israel's occupation of ... parts of Lebanon Which parts of Lebanon does Israel occupy?
  - orwin 8mo ago
    The south. It's not a real occupation like the west bank, it's more of a 'raid and pillage' thing. No rape reported yet, so it isn't at all like the West Bank.
  - Qem 8mo ago
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/14/un-peacekeepers-say-israel-built-walls-inside-lebanese-territory https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/14/un-peacekeepers-sa...
    - tome 8mo ago
      > The wall extends across the so-called Blue Line and has made “more than 4,000 square metres [43,055sq feet] of Lebanese territory inaccessible to the Lebanese people” So you're saying Israel's occupation of Lebanon amounts to 4,000 square metres? About the area of an athletics track, I guess? (Not counting the bit inside the athletics track.)
      - Y-bar 8mo ago
        How much land area, exactly, is another nation allowed to seize by force before it becomes unacceptable to you? It obviously is not that much given the tone of your message. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Lebanese_conflict#Israeli_incursions_into_Lebanon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Lebanese_confl...
        tome 8mo ago
        That's not the question I'm interested in. The question I'm interested in is whether it's correct to claim that Israel occupies "parts of Lebanon", particularly in the context in which the claim was made, next to the claim that it occupies Gaza and the West Bank.
metalman 8mo ago
there are many reasons to do nuclear research beyond medicine, for batteries like the ones powering the voyager space craft, nuclear reactors come in a wide variety of configurations, and many of them actualy produce more radioactive elements that then need to be managed. 60% is nothing,80% is nothing, it needs to be 93%++, and LOTS of it to build a bomb, and given the number of bombs already arrayed around Iran, they would need 100's and all the infrastructure to become a credible threat , for which they plainly dont have the money to afford. The wildly unpopular leaders going after Iran need a scapegoat, or rather a continious supply of scapegoats, but have failed to recognise that the world is moving past them.
- kyboren 8mo ago
  60% is actually very close to 93%. To go from natural uranium (<1% U235) to 60% represents the vast majority of the effort. From 60% to 93% is actually quite quick; most of the material is already U235. And they already have enough to build maybe a dozen bombs. They also have (had?) a very active ballistic missile program, and have conducted implosion experiments. The constellation of evidence is quite clear: Iran is a threshold nuclear state with all the pieces necessary to credibly threaten the region (and soon the US homeland) with nuclear weapons.
  - za3faran 8mo ago
    Talking hypotheticals, while the actual threat to the region are the usa and israel
    - kyboren 8mo ago
      Nice segue. We've gone from, "The amazing Islamic Republic of Iran isn't even capable of building deliverable nuclear weapons and they have lots of peaceful reasons to do enrichment to 60%!" to "Yeah OK, they are capable and they are indeed enriching Uranium for their weapons program--hey, look over here! USA and Israel!!!"
      - za3faran 8mo ago
Matl 8mo ago
No, the reason is to have a deterrence so that Iran could say, 'hey, if you attack us we'll develop nukes'. By the way, I am a lot more worried about Israel and its actual nuclear stockpile that has zero oversight.
- gryzzly 8mo ago
  [flagged]
- jameshilliard 8mo ago
  > By the way, I am a lot more worried about Israel and its actual nuclear stockpile that has zero oversight. Iran regularly threatens to destroy Israel, the opposite is not the case.

halflife 8mo ago

And burying your facilities under a mountain is not suspect at all

pydry 8mo ago
Not especially. Their other facilities were being bombed routinely by Israel (along with infrastructure).
- halflife 8mo ago
  So they have medical grade uranium facility under a mountain? If that’s all they need, wouldn’t it be easier to just purchase it from a third party instead of investing billions of dollars hiding from Israel?
  - pydry 8mo ago
    They have a military base under a mountain, not a uranium enrichment facility. Building military defenses against crazed, genocidal, racial supremacists who routinely fire missiles at your country seems more like sensible forward planning to me rather than evidence of a guilty conscience.

pseingatl 8mo ago

True. Medical needs require only a lower percentage. I don't know if Iran was planning any fission reactors.

tsimionescu 8mo ago

That's not the point. The point is that the attacks on Iran are not about the nuclear weapons. Iran entered the JCPOA and complied with it, it had completely suspended any nuclear weapons program. But that didn't matter for Israel and their sycophants in US foreign policy, because for them the nuclear weapons program is at best only one part of the problem. Their real problem is that Iran is an independent state in the region that refuses to accept Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of Lebanon, and that refuses to comply with US policies more broadly. Overall the goal is not to stop Iran's nuclear program, though that is part of it. The goal would be to install a government in Iran that is friendly to Israel and the USA, or, failing that, to completely destroy their economy and defense such that they effectively can't act outside their own borders.

tome 8mo ago
> Israel's occupation of ... parts of Lebanon Which parts of Lebanon does Israel occupy?
- orwin 8mo ago
  The south. It's not a real occupation like the west bank, it's more of a 'raid and pillage' thing. No rape reported yet, so it isn't at all like the West Bank.
- Qem 8mo ago
  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/14/un-peacekeepers-say-israel-built-walls-inside-lebanese-territory https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/14/un-peacekeepers-sa...
  - tome 8mo ago
    > The wall extends across the so-called Blue Line and has made “more than 4,000 square metres [43,055sq feet] of Lebanese territory inaccessible to the Lebanese people” So you're saying Israel's occupation of Lebanon amounts to 4,000 square metres? About the area of an athletics track, I guess? (Not counting the bit inside the athletics track.)
    - Y-bar 8mo ago
      How much land area, exactly, is another nation allowed to seize by force before it becomes unacceptable to you? It obviously is not that much given the tone of your message. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Lebanese_conflict#Israeli_incursions_into_Lebanon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Lebanese_confl...
      - tome 8mo ago
        That's not the question I'm interested in. The question I'm interested in is whether it's correct to claim that Israel occupies "parts of Lebanon", particularly in the context in which the claim was made, next to the claim that it occupies Gaza and the West Bank.

metalman 8mo ago

there are many reasons to do nuclear research beyond medicine, for batteries like the ones powering the voyager space craft, nuclear reactors come in a wide variety of configurations, and many of them actualy produce more radioactive elements that then need to be managed. 60% is nothing,80% is nothing, it needs to be 93%++, and LOTS of it to build a bomb, and given the number of bombs already arrayed around Iran, they would need 100's and all the infrastructure to become a credible threat , for which they plainly dont have the money to afford. The wildly unpopular leaders going after Iran need a scapegoat, or rather a continious supply of scapegoats, but have failed to recognise that the world is moving past them.

kyboren 8mo ago
60% is actually very close to 93%. To go from natural uranium (<1% U235) to 60% represents the vast majority of the effort. From 60% to 93% is actually quite quick; most of the material is already U235. And they already have enough to build maybe a dozen bombs. They also have (had?) a very active ballistic missile program, and have conducted implosion experiments. The constellation of evidence is quite clear: Iran is a threshold nuclear state with all the pieces necessary to credibly threaten the region (and soon the US homeland) with nuclear weapons.
- za3faran 8mo ago
  Talking hypotheticals, while the actual threat to the region are the usa and israel
  - kyboren 8mo ago
    Nice segue. We've gone from, "The amazing Islamic Republic of Iran isn't even capable of building deliverable nuclear weapons and they have lots of peaceful reasons to do enrichment to 60%!" to "Yeah OK, they are capable and they are indeed enriching Uranium for their weapons program--hey, look over here! USA and Israel!!!"
    - za3faran 8mo ago

Matl 8mo ago

No, the reason is to have a deterrence so that Iran could say, 'hey, if you attack us we'll develop nukes'. By the way, I am a lot more worried about Israel and its actual nuclear stockpile that has zero oversight.

gryzzly 8mo ago
[flagged]
jameshilliard 8mo ago
> By the way, I am a lot more worried about Israel and its actual nuclear stockpile that has zero oversight. Iran regularly threatens to destroy Israel, the opposite is not the case.