Comments
93scaro t1_j9o5fpu wrote
Realistically speaking, how much longer will it take until they have nuclear weapons ready? Anyone who has some expertise in the subject?
Grunchlk t1_j9o8bxd wrote
Iran has had the capability to build a bomb for at least 20 years. If they were trying to build one, they'd already have an arsenal full of them.
- Iran has mastered the fuel cycle. They have advanced centrifuges and thus enriching uranium to weapons grade is trivial for them. The bigger question is why haven't they?
- Iran has missiles capable of carrying a miniaturized nuclear warhead, yet they have only conventional warheads in their arsenal.
- Iran is believed to have conducted a number of implosion tests pre-2003. This would indicate they have enough knowledge for a trigger device.
Iran is using the threat of building a bomb as a tool for negotiations. Note how when the JCPOA was in effect Iran didn't enrich above 19.75%. Then once the US abandoned the agreement and forced the EU into non-compliance Iran cranked the purity up to 60+%. Now we're at 84%. Why would Iran keep increasing the purity while simultaneously letting everyone know? Because it's about securing a new deal.
However, it's also a warning that if anyone attacks Iran, they will purse a bomb and have one in less than 6 months.
3dio t1_j9oag6a wrote
6 months is plenty time to circumvent. I doubt this is anywhere related to being true.
There is no new deal for them on the horizon. In fact this proves the claim that the jcpoa was a scam to begin with and signed in bad faith.
Grunchlk t1_j9oscwk wrote
You don't believe Iran has mastered the fuel cycle? That's demonstrably true and universally accepted. The UN, IAEA, US, EU, etc, all agree that Iran has. The fact that they can trivially produce 84% HEU is also proof.
You don't believe Iran has missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads? I'll defer to Uzi Rabin, the father of Israel's missile program, who says they do and also says their missiles are quite more advanced that people believe.
You don't believe Iran has conducted implosion tests? This is one of the major sticking points of the JCPOA, the US and UN want access to Parchin because they have evidence that Iran did exactly that.
If you believe all these things are lies then you believe that Iran isn't capable of building a bomb, and thus any talk of such is propaganda.
3dio t1_j9ospvo wrote
>If you believe all these things are lies then you believe that Iran isn't capable of building a bomb, and thus any talk of such is propaganda.
Iran can have a bomb within a week. The question is how many of them can they make and maintain in the long term
Grunchlk t1_j9ousn1 wrote
I don't disagree that Iran could make one quickly (miniaturization would take a bit longer though.) I do disagree that they're already making one because they've had this capacity for 20 years now. 2002 is when they performed the implosion tests:
As of now Iran benefits more from threatening to cross the line that it does if it actually crosses it. Iran is hoping to leverage the threat to get a better deal. Maybe that won't work because of their support of Russia in the Ukraine War. However, that's what they're likely doing. If they cross the line then they likely get attacked by Israel, KSA and the US as well as max sanctions, embargoes, blockades, etc.
I highly expect Iran to state they'll be converting the TRR back to using HEU (as per its original design) instead of LEU. Then they'll have a legitimate reason for needing large quantities of weapons grade uranium. This puts them as close to that line as possible without crossing it.
If Israel, the US and KSA attack then Iran will make a bomb immediately and detonate one in the desert signalling the attacks are an existential threat which they'll respond to with maximum force.
The benefit of the JCPOA wasn't that it prevented Iran from having the know-how to make a bomb, it was that it ensured all the monitored uranium wasn't diverted and that it was converted to fuel rods (or at least stored in UN monitored containers/locations.) It also gave the IAEA broader ability to monitor for a parallel program.
3dio t1_j9pvess wrote
Here's to hoping no more wars and that the situation can somehow defuse itself
pp_in_a_pitcher t1_j9p9zve wrote
They probably already have a few nukes I would assume
ty_kanye_vcool t1_j9p8q5j wrote
If Iran is pursuing a bomb the attacks aren’t going to stop. They will do what they have to to stop it from being a reality.
cobrakai11 t1_j9or739 wrote
They could have a nuclear bomb 5 years ago if they wanted to. Enrichment is not some sort of video game loading screen, where they inch closer and closer to 90%. They have all the capabilities of enriching at 90% and building a bomb if they wanted.
If Iran wanted to build a nuclear weapon they could kick out the IAEA and build one tomorrow, like North Korea did. Or they could do what Israel India and Pakistan did when they wanted nukes, and simply never signed the NPT.
People seem to forget that Iran willingly signed the NPT allowing inspections in the first place. There was no need for them to do that, as it is not illegal for a country to build nuclear bombs. That's why Israel Pakistan and India have them. It is only illegal if you agree not to build them by signing the NPT.
The idea that Iran signed the NPT 20 years ago and has allowed endless sanctions to build the slowest nuclear bomb in the history of nuclear arms is ridiculous. Less technologically advanced countries were building nuclear bombs 50,60, 70 years ago.
Like most headlines on the subject this one is worded to make you think that Iran was caught doing something and confessed. There was nothing to catch them and nothing to confess to; they broadcasted the move and have been for several months now. The IAEA is actively monitoring their program, it wasn't an accusation it was a statement of fact.
pp_in_a_pitcher t1_j9panim wrote
I feel like majority of countries have the expertise to build the bombs , it’s gotten easier with time and could make them in 5-10 years given time but most don’t do as the holy 8 don’t want other nations to hurt their hegemony
EllieLuvsLollipops t1_j9r3wga wrote
Building a bomb is easy. It's a relatively simple design. It's the refinement that's hard, and that is only cause it costs money. After that it's time. Or more money to reduce that time. But yeah. It's not exactly hard
psyics t1_j9o6vcs wrote
It’s a political decision not a technical challenge that is the reason they do not have a functional weapon. If they decided today to manufacture one, it would take approximately 5 days for them to accumulate the required mass of HEU needed for a weapon and approximately 3 to 6 months for them to fashion the core into a deliverable weapon. Than probably another 6 months to miniaturize it into a warhead that could be usable on a ballistic missile for delivery
It should be noted that even though the article is saying they reached 84% purity it’s being slightly manipulative as Iran did not accumulate 84% enriched uranium which would be the real issue if they did. They have still not gone above 60% accumulated
cobrakai11 t1_j9oprc9 wrote
Iran's facilities are being monitored by the IAEA. There's nothing for them to acknowledge. This headline makes it seem like they're confessing to something, but it was done openly and in plain view of the nuclear monitors.
People seem to think that nuclear enrichment is a loading screen, now that they've done 84%, they're going to be close to getting to 90%. That's not how it works. Iran has been able to enrich 90% for a decade at least. They have never done so. Most people think that their nuclear program is on some sort of breakneck race to get to 90% and start building a bomb...that's just not true.
If Iran wanted to build a nuclear weapon they could kick out the IAEA and build one tomorrow, like North Korea did. Or they could do what Israel India and Pakistan did when they wanted nukes, and simply never signed the NPT.
They have no reason to invite the IAEA into their country while simultaneously trying to build nuclear bombs under their nose. Any country in the world that wanted to do it could do it easier.
bildo72 OP t1_j9o19ww wrote
>DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran on Thursday directly acknowledged an accusation attributed to international inspectors that it enriched uranium to 84% purity for the first time, which would put the Islamic Republic closer than ever to weapons-grade material.
>The acknowledgement by a news website linked to the highest reaches of Iran’s theocracy renews pressure on the West to address Tehran’s program, which had been contained by the 2015 nuclear deal that America unilaterally withdrew from in 2018. Years of attacks across the Middle East have followed.
>Already Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who recently regained his country’s premiership, is threatening to take military action similar to when Israel previously bombed nuclear programs in Iraq and Syria. But while those attacks saw no war erupt, Iran has an arsenal of ballistic missiles, drones and other weaponry it and its allies already have used in the region.
>Already Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who recently regained his country’s premiership, is threatening to take military action similar to when Israel previously bombed nuclear programs in Iraq and Syria. But while those attacks saw no war erupt, Iran has an arsenal of ballistic missiles, drones and other weaponry it and its allies already have used in the region.
mrb1 t1_j9rbvzp wrote
Fuck the Ayatollah's.
Kewenfu t1_j9seo93 wrote
Bombing will commence in 5 minutes.
Ill_Meringue_4216 t1_j9oxi8q wrote
Frankly with the hard on Americans have for the death of this country, this is in their best interests.
[deleted] t1_j9o257l wrote
Israel acknowledges that Iran acknowledges and starts massive military campaign
1BannedAgain t1_j9o625c wrote
Why shouldn’t a sovereign state create nuclear weapons to deter foreign invaders?
3dio t1_j9oa679 wrote
In general, none. Yet this certain “state” is ruled by a fundamentalist international terrorist organisation IRGC. And has acted in bad faith on the international stage for over 4 decades, hence the opposition.
Ill_Meringue_4216 t1_j9oxdao wrote
Oh right, much like a certain "United States"
3dio t1_j9pq0t0 wrote
Apples and pears
takeitineasy t1_j9qcl3u wrote
No. Are women in the US being killed for not covering their heads? No, you have pride parades, gay nightclubs, largely uncensored internet porn available for free and practically everywhere, ability to burn bibles and insult religious figures and no one cares (unless it's muhammed). These are just examples, if I'd make an exhaustive list I'd be here all night.
1BannedAgain t1_j9oeqiu wrote
Hahahha. Iran wouldn’t be the first religious state, the first terrorist state, or the first religious-terrorist state, to develop and maintain nuclear weapons.
But please, carry on with the bigoted hypocrisy
3dio t1_j9ofjnb wrote
Sure. Yea it's a great idea for IR regime to have nuclear military capabilities and anyone who thinks it's a bad idea is bigoted
1BannedAgain t1_j9p4uqj wrote
First, a treaty is only good until a counterparty pulls out, of said treaty. Perhaps message DJT on TruthSocial and ask why he unilaterally pulled out of the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Why shouldn't Iran be able to defend itself against a foreign invader? Having a nuclear weapon has been demonstrated on the world stage to be a quality deterrent to foreign invasion- just ask North Korea.
You might also ask Ukraine about nuclear deterrence. They gave up their weapons after the fall of the USSR, and signed a treaty with the successor to the USSR. The successor to the USSR pulled out of the treaty decades later. Ukraine has since been invaded by the successor to the USSR.
Which nuclear capable states have been invaded by a foreign state since 1946?
takeitineasy t1_j9qdejm wrote
You know how many countries there are without nukes that aren't getting invaded? Lots. No one wants to invade iran, the US could have done it decades ago during the revolution, but they didn't. But yea, let's also let Niue have nukes, so that Niue doesn't get invaded by Tonga.
1BannedAgain t1_j9qfdsv wrote
Revisionist history! The US propped up the Shah of Iran. Go back and read about the revolution as it’s clear to me there’s much you are ignorant about.
Radicalization of Iran was caused directly by the USA— in a similar way that the USA was responsible for Osama bin Laden
[deleted] t1_j9x8xp0 wrote
[removed]
takeitineasy t1_j9qcujp wrote
And your solution is to let everyone have nukes. At least that's what your comment implies.
1BannedAgain t1_j9qev7c wrote
And the opposite implication is to go to war, to prevent war.
Imagine being Iran for a moment. Iran requires nuclear power as they became a net-energy-importer about a decade ago. They signed onto an international treaty, only for a US President to unilaterally withdraw from said treaty.
So now Iran has 2 options: acquire nuclear weapons to deter foreign invasion & war, or attempt to acquire nuclear weapons for that act to cause a foreign invasion.
Iran is sure to be invaded by a foreign state should they not acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea and Ukraine are the best precedents
Nuclear weapons will proliferate as the plans have existed in publicly accessible locations for well over 50 years
ViceroyClementine t1_j9ootvv wrote
They shouldn’t because the west said so and will bomb them into oblivion if they do.
1BannedAgain t1_j9p5p9r wrote
Is that how international law, international relations, or how a civilized society handles anything?
The USA has a bigger stick, so don’t pick up a counter stick?
Your comment sounds like weak sauce for the weak-minded
ViceroyClementine t1_j9peh3v wrote
Have you seen the past 70 years of international law, international relations or how civilized society handles literally everything?
Why would Israel / the west allow a nation who has sworn the destruction of another to gain nuclear weapons capability? Especially when it is within their means to deny them?
Iran can attempt to pick up whatever stick it wants- and Israel / the west can deploy theirs whenever they choose as well.
Is it fair? That’s the wrong question to ask. The actual question that should be asked is - what will they do with it if they get it? What are the consequences of a nuclear Iran? We share this world, and like it or not big sticks matter, as do the opinions and interests of our neighbours.
1BannedAgain t1_j9pfucb wrote
> Especially when it is within their means to deny them?
Written like it’s a bureaucratic application review that will simply be stamped with “denied”
I’m not sure why you brought Israel up
ViceroyClementine t1_j9pjayp wrote
Because Iran has sworn to destroy them.
You can describe the process as emotionally as you want, Israel and the west are key stakeholders - with the means to deny, prevent, and obliterate whatever they choose.
Nuclear weapons are not a rite of passage - they are a means to both defend a country and provide cover for aggression. The latter is the concern.
[deleted] t1_j9px0gk wrote
[removed]
ty_kanye_vcool t1_j9p8l2l wrote
What the hell does “acknowledges accusation” mean
“Hey, you enriched uranium to 84%!”
“Hey, you said I enriched uranium to 84%!”