enriched uranium

[baltimorened]

thinking this morning..lots of debate on urgency of Iran "excursion" and the Iranian statement that they had enough 60% enriched uranium to make bombs. But we haven't discussed what that really means .
So I asked AI, if you could make a nuclear bomb with 60% enriched uranium...this was the answer

Yes, it is scientifically possible to build a nuclear bomb with 60% enriched uranium, though it is not the ideal "weapons-grade" material typically used by modern military powers

• Feasibility and Material: Uranium enriched to 60% is classified as highly enriched uranium (HEU). While "weapons-grade" uranium is generally defined as 90% or higher, any HEU above 20% is considered "weapon-usable".
• Design and Yield:
  • Gun-type Device: Experts note that a crude "gun-type" weapon (similar to the Little Boy design) could be built using roughly 40 kg to 60 kg of 60% enriched uranium and a large neutron reflector. Such a device would likely produce a yield in the kiloton range.
  • Implosion Device: More advanced implosion designs could also use 60% material, but the yield would be significantly lower (about 1/4 to 1/5) than if the same design used 90% material.
• Practical Constraints:
  • Size and Weight: A bomb made with 60% uranium requires a much larger "critical mass" than one made with 90% material. This often makes the final weapon too heavy or bulky for typical ballistic missiles, though it could still be delivered via shipping container or heavy aircraft.
  • Technical Difficulty: While the physics allows for it, achieving a successful detonation with lower-enrichment material requires precise engineering to ensure the chain reaction occurs fast enough before the device blows itself apart prematurely.
• Proximity to 90%: In terms of the effort required for uranium enrichment, reaching the 60% level represents roughly 99% of the total work needed to reach 90% weapons-grade purity. Consequently, a state with 60% material is technically only a very short step away from 90% material

Now I don't know if the statement by the Iranians that they had sufficient 60% enriched uranium for 11 bombs was the urgency factor, (other sites say 60% is only 2-3 weeks away from 90% enriched) for the "excursion", and obviously delivery is still an issue, but at least we know that, if the Iranians were factual, they were close to the military grade they needed.

 

[Moogy]

thinking this morning..lots of debate on urgency of Iran "excursion" and the Iranian statement that they had enough 60% enriched uranium to make bombs. But we haven't discussed what that really means .
So I asked AI, if you could make a nuclear bomb with 60% enriched uranium...this was the answer

Yes, it is scientifically possible to build a nuclear bomb with 60% enriched uranium, though it is not the ideal "weapons-grade" material typically used by modern military powers

• Feasibility and Material: Uranium enriched to 60% is classified as highly enriched uranium (HEU). While "weapons-grade" uranium is generally defined as 90% or higher, any HEU above 20% is considered "weapon-usable".
• Design and Yield:
  • Gun-type Device: Experts note that a crude "gun-type" weapon (similar to the Little Boy design) could be built using roughly 40 kg to 60 kg of 60% enriched uranium and a large neutron reflector. Such a device would likely produce a yield in the kiloton range.
  • Implosion Device: More advanced implosion designs could also use 60% material, but the yield would be significantly lower (about 1/4 to 1/5) than if the same design used 90% material.
• Practical Constraints:
  • Size and Weight: A bomb made with 60% uranium requires a much larger "critical mass" than one made with 90% material. This often makes the final weapon too heavy or bulky for typical ballistic missiles, though it could still be delivered via shipping container or heavy aircraft.
  • Technical Difficulty: While the physics allows for it, achieving a successful detonation with lower-enrichment material requires precise engineering to ensure the chain reaction occurs fast enough before the device blows itself apart prematurely.
• Proximity to 90%: In terms of the effort required for uranium enrichment, reaching the 60% level represents roughly 99% of the total work needed to reach 90% weapons-grade purity. Consequently, a state with 60% material is technically only a very short step away from 90% material

Now I don't know if the statement by the Iranians that they had sufficient 60% enriched uranium for 11 bombs was the urgency factor, (other sites say 60% is only 2-3 weeks away from 90% enriched) for the "excursion", and obviously delivery is still an issue, but at least we know that, if the Iranians were factual, they were close to the military grade they needed.

Did you ask AI if you can make a nuclear bomb with an obliterated nuclear program?

 

[baltimorened]

Did you ask AI if you can make a nuclear bomb with an obliterated nuclear program?

nope, didn't have to...but if you're implying that all of the nuclear material was stored in one place, I don't think you've seen all the articles that have pointed out that's not the case. Plus the Iranian's statement about what they have, sort of indicates what they have...and that statement was made after the nuclear program was obliterated.

Your thought process might yield you to a more concrete analysis if your first thought was not to simply think...but Trump. just saying

 

[Fac]

Your thought process might yield you to a more concrete analysis if your first thought was not to simply think...but Trump. just saying

^^^^^ This will never happen. TDS at its finest.

 

[baltimorened]

^^^^^ This will never happen. TDS at its finest.

yea, it's hard to have a reasonable back and forth when the first thought is about denigrating trump as opposed to the discussing the post.

 

[Hotshoe]

The more outraged the drama queens become, the smarter they believe themselves to be. Then the anger, and then it's, Nazis!!! It must be so tiring to constantly talking down to others pretending to be better than others. Oh, and the empathy they have, especially the Whites towards Blacks. Always telling them how dumb they are, and they couldn't possibly use a computer or get an ID. I wonder how they get into the Obama library without an ID.

 

[firegiver]

The problem here Ned is the framing of your discussion. The best way to ensure the nuclear program is not working towards a bomb, is inspections. There are valid reasons for a country to enrich uranium besides a bomb.

 

[FLaw47]

The more outraged the drama queens become, the smarter they believe themselves to be. Then the anger, and then it's, Nazis!!! It must be so tiring to constantly talking down to others pretending to be better than others. Oh, and the empathy they have, especially the Whites towards Blacks. Always telling them how dumb they are, and they couldn't possibly use a computer or get an ID. I wonder how they get into the Obama library without an ID.

 

[fatpiggy]

The problem here Ned is the framing of your discussion. The best way to ensure the nuclear program is not working towards a bomb, is inspections. There are valid reasons for a country to enrich uranium besides a bomb.

But not to the levels they were enriching to, correct?

We also offered them commercial grade uranium for free basically forever and they rebuffed that offer, correct?

Didn’t we already have inspectors? And Irans still had enough material to make 10 Nukes?

 

[baltimorened]

The problem here Ned is the framing of your discussion. The best way to ensure the nuclear program is not working towards a bomb, is inspections. There are valid reasons for a country to enrich uranium besides a bomb.

oh, I don't disagree with your thoughts...but if, in fact, they have 60% enriched uranium, the inspections, it appears, weren't very thorough...I also agree with your comments about other uses for uranium, but, from what I read (not a nuclear engineer) the max you need for those other uses is 40% enrichment more likely 20%...from ai

However, it is a matter of public record that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) classifies uranium enriched to 20% or higher as Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). Uranium at this enrichment level is considered "weapons-usable" material.

 

[FLaw47]

oh, I don't disagree with your thoughts...but if, in fact, they have 60% enriched uranium, the inspections, it appears, weren't very thorough...I also agree with your comments about other uses for uranium, but, from what I read (not a nuclear engineer) the max you need for those other uses is 40% enrichment more likely 20%...from ai

However, it is a matter of public record that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) classifies uranium enriched to 20% or higher as Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). Uranium at this enrichment level is considered "weapons-usable" material.

Do we know what the details of the now defunct Iran Nuclear Deal were? I don't have any feel for:

• If Iran was in compliance with the deal while it was still active
• If the terms were sufficient

I suspect the answer to both of those is "yes" and that this is entirely a problem of Trump's own creation but I carry my own biases into this, obviously.

Edit: Cursory research suggests that my assumptions were correct and this whole thing is Trump's fault

 

[yoshi121374]

Do we know what the details of the now defunct Iran Nuclear Deal were? I don't have any feel for:

• If Iran was in compliance with the deal while it was still active
• If the terms were sufficient

I suspect the answer to both of those is "yes" and that this is entirely a problem of Trump's own creation but I carry my own biases into this, obviously.

Edit: Cursory research suggests that my assumptions were correct and this whole thing is Trump's fault

It sure seems as if Trump allowed himself to be used as a pawn by Israel and Bibi to get the support they needed to attack Iran.

 

[firegiver]

Do we know what the details of the now defunct Iran Nuclear Deal were? I don't have any feel for:

• If Iran was in compliance with the deal while it was still active
• If the terms were sufficient

I suspect the answer to both of those is "yes" and that this is entirely a problem of Trump's own creation but I carry my own biases into this, obviously.

Edit: Cursory research suggests that my assumptions were correct and this whole thing is Trump's fault

+5
The 2015 Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and negotiated under the Obama administration, included specific, stringent, and time-bound limitations on Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Here are the key details on uranium enrichment under the JCPOA:

• Enrichment Levels: Iran was restricted to enriching uranium to no more than 3.67% U-235 for 15 years. This level is sufficient for fueling nuclear power plants (like Bushehr) but far below the 90% required for a nuclear weapon.
• Stockpile Reduction: Iran agreed to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by roughly 98%—from over 10,000 kg (in 2015) to a maximum of 300 kg of low-enriched uranium (UF6) for 15 years.
• Centrifuge Restrictions: Iran was required to reduce its installed centrifuges by two-thirds, reducing the number from nearly 20,000 to 6,104 at the Natanz facility, with only 5,060 permitted to operate for 10 years. Only first-generation IR-1 centrifuges were allowed for production, with advanced models restricted.
• Fordow Enrichment Plant: Enrichment was banned at the Fordow facility, an underground site, for at least 15 years. Fordow was to be converted into a nuclear physics and technology center, with only 1,044 centrifuges allowed for non-enrichment purposes (stable radioisotope production).
• Breakout Time: These measures were designed to extend Iran's "breakout time"—the time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single bomb—from 2-3 months to at least one year.
• Monitoring: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was given unprecedented, 24-hour access to enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow to ensure compliance.
• Duration:The constraints on the number and type of centrifuges lasted for 10 years, while the stockpile and enrichment level limits remained in place for 15 years.
  Obama White House Archive +3

Following the U.S. withdrawal from the deal in 2018, Iran began exceeding these limits, including resuming higher enrichment levels.
ICAN - International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

13:10
The Historic Deal that Will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon ...
Obama White House Archive·The Obama White House
Iran nuclear deal - Wikipedia
Not to be confused with Comprehensive Plan of Action. * The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA; Persian: برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک, romanized: barnāmeye jā...
Wikipedia
The Impact of the Iran Nuclear Deal: Fact-Checking the Fact Checkers
Oct 5, 2016 — an Iranian commitment not to engage in spent fuel reprocessing, which allows for the extraction of plutonium for 15 years, and possibly more; a permanent prohib...
Arms Control Association
A comprehensive timeline of the Iran nuclear deal | Brookings
Jul 21, 2015 — * that Iran is keeping its enrichment capacity at under 5060 IR-1 centrifuges, in no more than 30 cascades in their current configuration at Natanz Fuel Enrichm...
Brookings
What You Need to Know About the Iran Nuclear Deal - ICAN
SHARE * Put simply, the Iran nuclear deal imposed limits on the Iranian nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. More specifically, the agreement blo...
ICAN - International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Iran nuclear deal: What it all means - BBC News
Nov 23, 2021 — Iran nuclear deal: What it all means * AFP. In 2015, Iran agreed a long-term deal on its nuclear programme with a group of world powers known as the P5+1 - the ...
BBC
Nuclear Agreement With Iran - State.gov
President Obama Announces a Historic Nuclear Deal with Iran. July 14, 2015. ... Your browser can't play this video. ... An error occurred. Try watching this vid...
U.S. Department of State (.gov)
Obama’s Deal Was Better Than Trump's War
Apr 9, 2026 — The deal forced Iran to: * Reduce its number of operating centrifuges to 5,000 from 19,000. * Eliminate all of its stockpile of enriched uranium down to a token...
Joe Cirincione | Substack

 

[firegiver]

It was always apparent that Trump never understood the Iran deal. Yall who believed him when he said it was a bad deal... what do think now when reviewing the details of it?

 

[fskillet]

It was always apparent that Trump never understood the Iran deal. Yall who believed him when he said it was a bad deal... what do think now when reviewing the details of it?

Incoming iterations of: "it's a terrible deal because you can't trust Iran"

 

[firegiver]

Incoming iterations of: "it's a terrible deal because you can't trust Iran"

Thus the international team of inspectors... But sure.

 

[fskillet]

Thus the international team of inspectors... But sure.

You really gonna trust inspectors that are probably deep state actors from the uniparty???

 

[baltimorened]

Incoming iterations of: "it's a terrible deal because you can't trust Iran"

well, if all of this is accurate, and I have no doubt it is, then Iran should have no trouble accepting the same or similar restrictions before Trump ends their civilization.

It's really a shame that when one president, be it Democrat or republican, comes up with a plan - like the Iran nuclear deal- that members of both parties can't analyze the details before the opposition party automatically declares it to be bad.

 

[fskillet]

well, if all of this is accurate, and I have no doubt it is, then Iran should have no trouble accepting the same or similar restrictions before Trump ends their civilization.

It's really a shame that when one president, be it Democrat or republican, comes up with a plan - like the Iran nuclear deal- that members of both parties can't analyze the details before the opposition party automatically declares it to be bad.

I don't disagree, but that's assuming we're dealing with rational actors. Things get a little wacky when dealing with religious zealots who are seemingly backed into a corner.

 

[firegiver]

You really gonna trust inspectors that are probably deep state actors from the uniparty???

Only solution must be total annihilation

 

[Moogy]

nope, didn't have to...but if you're implying that all of the nuclear material was stored in one place, I don't think you've seen all the articles that have pointed out that's not the case. Plus the Iranian's statement about what they have, sort of indicates what they have...and that statement was made after the nuclear program was obliterated.

Your thought process might yield you to a more concrete analysis if your first thought was not to simply think...but Trump. just saying

It was a very straightforward question that only needed a "yes" or "no" answer. Seems like you needed to scramble to "but defend Trump."

Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News

The world is far safer after President Donald J. Trump’s highly successful, decisive precision strikes against the Iranian regime’s key nuclear

www.whitehouse.gov

The world is far safer after President Donald J. Trump’s highly successful, decisive precision strikes against the Iranian regime’s key nuclear facilities.

Take it from those who actually know:
President Trump: “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term! The white structure shown is deeply imbedded into the rock, with even its roof well below ground level, and completely shielded from flame. The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!”
Israel Atomic Energy Commission: “The devastating US strike on Fordo destroyed the site’s critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable. We assess that the American strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes on other elements of Iran’s military nuclear program, has set back Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years. The achievement can continue indefinitely if Iran does not get access to nuclear material.”
IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir: “I can say here that the assessment is that we significantly damaged the nuclear program, and I can also say that we set it back by years, I repeat, years.”
Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei: “Our nuclear installations have been badly damaged, that’s for sure.”
Vice President JD Vance: “I can say to the American people with great confidence that they are much further away from a nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago. That was the objective of the mission, to destroy that Fordow nuclear site, and of course, do some damage to the other sites as well, but we feel very confident that the Fordow nuclear site was substantially set back, and that was our goal.”
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: “Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran; so anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the President and the successful mission.”
Secretary Hegseth: “Given the 30,000 pounds of explosions and the capability of those munitions, it was DEVASTATION underneath Fordow … Any assessment that tells you otherwise is speculating with other motives.”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan “Razin” Caine: “Initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction. More than 125 US aircraft participated in this mission, including B2 stealth bombers, multiple flights of fourth and fifth generation fighters, dozens and dozens of air refueling tankers, a guided missile submarine, and a full array of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as hundreds of maintenance and operational professionals.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio: “The Iranian program — the nuclear program — today looks nothing like it did just a week ago … That story is a false story and it’s one that really shouldn’t be re-reported because it doesn’t accurately reflect what’s happening.”
Secretary Rubio: “Everything underneath that mountain is in bad shape … There’s no way Iran comes to the table if somehow nothing had happened. This was complete and total obliteration. They are in bad shape. They are way behind today compared to where they were just seven days ago because of what President Trump did.”
Special Envoy Steve Witkoff: “We put 12 bunker buster bombs on Fordow. There’s no doubt that it breached the canopy, there’s no doubt that it was well within reach of the depth that these bunker buster bombs go to, and there’s no doubt that it was obliterated — so the reporting out there that in some way suggests that we did not achieve the objective is just completely preposterous.”
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: “The operation was a resounding success. Our missiles were delivered precisely and accurately, obliterating key Iranian capabilities needed to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon.”
International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi: “Given the explosive payload utilized, and the extreme vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred. At the Esfahan nuclear site, additional buildings were hit, with the US confirming their use of cruise missiles. Affected buildings include some related to the uranium conversion process. Also at this site, entrances to tunnels used for the storage of enriched material appear to have been hit. At the Natanz enrichment site, the Fuel Enrichment Plant was hit, with the US confirming that it used ground-penetrating munitions.”
Institute for Science and International Security President David Albright: “Overall, Israel’s and U.S. attacks have effectively destroyed Iran’s centrifuge enrichment program. It will be a long time before Iran comes anywhere near the capability it had before the attack.”
Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program Deputy Director Andrea Stricker: “I think that because of the massive damage and the shock wave that would have been sent by 12 Massive Ordnance Penetrators at the Fordow site, that it likely would render its centrifuges damaged or inoperable.”
American Enterprise Institute Middle East Portfolio Manager Brian Carter: “There is no question that the bombing campaign ‘badly, badly damaged’ the three sites.”
Institute for Science and International Security Senior Research Fellow Spencer Faragasso: “Overall, it may possibly take years for Iran to reconstitute the capabilities it lost at these facilities.”

-------------------------------------------------

"obliterated" and "set back years" turned into "within weeks" just 9 months later.

Your defense of Trump has been obliterated.

 

[Moogy]

It must be so tiring to constantly talking down to others pretending to be better than others.

Not sure you've ever posted without calling someone else "pathetic," a "liar," or something else insulting or condescending ... so how tired are YOU?

 

[nytigerfan]

oh, I don't disagree with your thoughts...but if, in fact, they have 60% enriched uranium, the inspections, it appears, weren't very thorough...I also agree with your comments about other uses for uranium, but, from what I read (not a nuclear engineer) the max you need for those other uses is 40% enrichment more likely 20%...from ai

However, it is a matter of public record that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) classifies uranium enriched to 20% or higher as Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). Uranium at this enrichment level is considered "weapons-usable" material.

didnt Trump kill the Obama iran deal with inspections back in 2018? Seems like that’s what given our iran time to do what they’ve done. Since the beginning of this every expert that I’ve seen and has said the only way to get the uranium out of Iran is with a boots on the ground military operation. I believe that’s 100% true. I also believe the fact that Trumps Department of war didn’t know this is ******* disgusting. Of course, we may already have boots on the ground and we’re just not aware.

 

[baltimorened]

didnt Trump kill the Obama iran deal with inspections back in 2018? Seems like that’s what given our iran time to do what they’ve done. Since the beginning of this every expert that I’ve seen and has said the only way to get the uranium out of Iran is with a boots on the ground military operation. I believe that’s 100% true. I also believe the fact that Trumps Department of war didn’t know this is ******* disgusting. Of course, we may already have boots on the ground and we’re just not aware.

I'd bet we have boots on the ground somewhere in Iran.

but, as I posted in another thread, I saw a nuclear expert (he was billed as such) on a CNBC segment this morning. He painted a relatively severe operation to remove the 60% uranium...apparently the entrances have been bombed to where there are tons of material blocking the entrances, it's likely the cannisters have been damaged making for a dangerous and toxic situation, the cannisters are too heavy for a person to carry, the people would have to be in hazmat suits...he said it would be possible, but the idea of a hovering helicopter with men rappelling to carry out the materials is not realistic. So seems like a major effort.

I'm only repeating what he said. Supposedly he is a expert, I'm not.

 

[FLaw47]

I'd bet we have boots on the ground somewhere in Iran.

but, as I posted in another thread, I saw a nuclear expert (he was billed as such) on a CNBC segment this morning. He painted a relatively severe operation to remove the 60% uranium...apparently the entrances have been bombed to where there are tons of material blocking the entrances, it's likely the cannisters have been damaged making for a dangerous and toxic situation, the cannisters are too heavy for a person to carry, the people would have to be in hazmat suits...he said it would be possible, but the idea of a hovering helicopter with men rappelling to carry out the materials is not realistic. So seems like a major effort.

I'm only repeating what he said. Supposedly he is a expert, I'm not.

I sure miss the old deal.

 

[Moogy]

I sure miss the old deal.

This would be status quo for Trump ... come in, point at everything and say it's wrong, everyone who did it before was stupid and he can do better ... cause all sorts of trouble, blowing things up (sometimes literally) and upsetting people, causing chaos, panic and uncertainty, bang out a new deal, claim it's the best deal that was ever dealt ... then come to find out we're worse off than we were before he got involved. And then MAGAts continue to defend his deal-making, and when that doesn't pan out for them, say "well, at least he did SOMETHING!"

 

[baltimorened]

I sure miss the old deal.

we've won the war militarily...we're about to lose it politically....expended a lot of energy, spent lots of money, but walk away declaring victory without accomplishing what we set out to do. (not that I'm 100% sure what that was)To change the dynamic, JD Vance better be one heck of a negotiator


remember vietnam - "peace with honor", in other words, we've had enough, let's go home

 

[FLaw47]

we've won the war militarily...we're about to lose it politically....expended a lot of energy, spent lots of money, but walk away declaring victory without accomplishing what we set out to do. (not that I'm 100% sure what that was)To change the dynamic, JD Vance better be one heck of a negotiator


remember vietnam - "peace with honor", in other words, we've had enough, let's go home

I'm asking genuinely, how are we better off now than we were while the deal was active?

 

[baltimorened]

I'm asking genuinely, how are we better off now than we were while the deal was active?

to make sure we're talking the same thing. what is your definition of "the deal". If you mean the "deal" with Iran, I don't think there is a deal. just a framework for discussion, and I don't know what that is

 

[FLaw47]

to make sure we're talking the same thing. what is your definition of "the deal". If you mean the "deal" with Iran, I don't think there is a deal. just a framework for discussion, and I don't know what that is

The old Iran Nuclear Deal that Trump withdrew from in 2018.

 

[baltimorened]

I don't know to tell you the truth, don't know enough about it...I would assume that if Iran was limited to non military enrichment, was inspected, and lived to the terms, it might have been a good deal. But I don't have all the facts that surround it.

I don't know this either, but I surmise, that since it was an Obama deal, republicans, by definition, were against it and stretched reality to denigrate it. And, equally surmised, since it was Obama, democrats, by definition, loved it and stretched reality to support it. But, in reality, again surmised, members of both parties had such little knowledge of nuclear things that they should have listened to unaffiliated experts to determine the cost benefit before they formed their opinions. But, that's not the way our politics seems to function these days.

I'm realistic to understand my limitations. I'd be totally dependent on someone with more knowledge than I to give me advice on which way to go, and then i'd bring in another expert to refute the first, analyze both viewpoints and make a decision based on what I thought was best for the country. I'd err on the side of caution, because I can't see the world with a nuclear armed Iran

 

[dpic73]

This would be status quo for Trump ... come in, point at everything and say it's wrong, everyone who did it before was stupid and he can do better ... cause all sorts of trouble, blowing things up (sometimes literally) and upsetting people, causing chaos, panic and uncertainty, bang out a new deal, claim it's the best deal that was ever dealt ... then come to find out we're worse off than we were before he got involved. And then MAGAts continue to defend his deal-making, and when that doesn't pan out for them, say "well, at least he did SOMETHING!"

THIS! the bolded. No matter if we're talking about healthcare, cybersecurity, pollution, scientific evidence, deficits, consumer protection, medical institutions, alliances, election security, you name it. He sees a problem, claims he'll fix it and he always makes it worse. If a Democrat wins the presidency, they will have to enact some tough fixes to unravel the mess he's made, which will make them unpopular and the cycle will continue.

 

[nytigerfan]

I'd bet we have boots on the ground somewhere in Iran.

but, as I posted in another thread, I saw a nuclear expert (he was billed as such) on a CNBC segment this morning. He painted a relatively severe operation to remove the 60% uranium...apparently the entrances have been bombed to where there are tons of material blocking the entrances, it's likely the cannisters have been damaged making for a dangerous and toxic situation, the cannisters are too heavy for a person to carry, the people would have to be in hazmat suits...he said it would be possible, but the idea of a hovering helicopter with men rappelling to carry out the materials is not realistic. So seems like a major effort.

I'm only repeating what he said. Supposedly he is a expert, I'm not.

Yet another thing that i wish the Trump admin had considered before bombing Iran and getting us into this mess. Sorry, I know you don’t want us to criticize Trump in the discussion. But in my view this is a Trump discussion.

 

[nytigerfan]

we've won the war militarily...we're about to lose it politically....expended a lot of energy, spent lots of money, but walk away declaring victory without accomplishing what we set out to do. (not that I'm 100% sure what that was)To change the dynamic, JD Vance better be one heck of a negotiator


remember vietnam - "peace with honor", in other words, we've had enough, let's go home

I disagree that we have won the war. They still have enriched uranium. There is still nothing stoping them from patching together a dirty bomb.

 

[nytigerfan]

THIS! the bolded. No matter if we're talking about healthcare, cybersecurity, pollution, scientific evidence, deficits, consumer protection, medical institutions, alliances, election security, you name it. He sees a problem, claims he'll fix it and he always makes it worse. If a Democrat wins the presidency, they will have to enact some tough fixes to unravel the mess he's made, which will make them unpopular and the cycle will continue.

this has been the case with the last 2 republican presidents. bush 2, Trump. They come in, wreck the economy, start wars, then a dem has to fix it. You could also put bush 1 on there, but the problems he faced began under Reagan. And at least he tried to do the right thing by raising taxes, which ended up being his downfall.

 

[baltimorened]

Yet another thing that i wish the Trump admin had considered before bombing Iran and getting us into this mess. Sorry, I know you don’t want us to criticize Trump in the discussion. But in my view this is a Trump discussion.

I don't care if you criticize Trump. I do, often. I think this has been a massive military show of power, that, if continued, will devastate Iran. I also think that victory won't be militarily won, rather politically. That is, if we don't achieve our objectives - which are still unclear - than we'll likely get the opportunity to do this again. Or if our leadership decides to cut bait, like Vietnam, then we will have lost. I think this kind of decision will come from Congress, not from trump.

I don't think some of you give enough credit to our forces for what has been accomplished. Because of my background, I'm into all this war stuff. Iran is on it's last legs militarily and about all they have left is their control over the strait. But retired admirals have constantly said that that control can be eliminated...we have the capability..there is some risk - always is in a war environment.

Iran wants to hold on. They are not naive to our political process and they know how much time Trump has.

I realize their is reasoned debate about whether or not the original bombing and the war were necessary. I get it, I have my own questions. But we are where we are...we've gone this far. Do we stop or finish what we started? Everyone will have their opinion on this also. Just remember, Iran and it's proxies have been targeting and killing amrericans for years.

 

[baltimorened]

I disagree that we have won the war. They still have enriched uranium. There is still nothing stoping them from patching together a dirty bomb.

well, they have to get at it first. And from experts say, it's embedded underground, entrances closed and under tons of debris, with a distinct likelihood that the canisters have been damaged and are toxic. That's not my analysis, i'm just reporting what supposedly knowledgeable have reported.

Some of these same experts question whether it will ever be recovered, uncovered or useable. Again, I don't know, just re reporting

 

[nytigerfan]

I don't care if you criticize Trump. I do, often. I think this has been a massive military show of power, that, if continued, will devastate Iran. I also think that victory won't be militarily won, rather politically. That is, if we don't achieve our objectives - which are still unclear - than we'll likely get the opportunity to do this again. Or if our leadership decides to cut bait, like Vietnam, then we will have lost. I think this kind of decision will come from Congress, not from trump.

I don't think some of you give enough credit to our forces for what has been accomplished. Because of my background, I'm into all this war stuff. Iran is on it's last legs militarily and about all they have left is their control over the strait. But retired admirals have constantly said that that control can be eliminated...we have the capability..there is some risk - always is in a war environment.

Iran wants to hold on. They are not naive to our political process and they know how much time Trump has.

I realize there is reasoned debate about whether or not the original bombing and the war were necessary. I get it, I have my own questions. But we are where we are...we've gone this far. Do we stop or finish what we started? Everyone will have their opinion on this also. Just remember, Iran and its irproxies have been targeting and killing amrericans for years.

criticizing trumps decision to start the war is not criticizing the military. I will always support the military.

 

[ANEW]

well, they have to get at it first. And from experts say, it's embedded underground, entrances closed and under tons of debris, with a distinct likelihood that the canisters have been damaged and are toxic. That's not my analysis, i'm just reporting what supposedly knowledgeable have reported.

Some of these same experts question whether it will ever be recovered, uncovered or useable. Again, I don't know, just re reporting

Hang a do not disturb for a few hundred thousand years sign on the rubble schedule regular surveillance and call it good.

 

[LafayetteBear]

• Design and Yield:
  • Gun-type Device: Experts note that a crude "gun-type" weapon (similar to the Little Boy design) could be built using roughly 40 kg to 60 kg of 60% enriched uranium and a large neutron reflector. Such a device would likely produce a yield in the kiloton range.
  • Implosion Device: More advanced implosion designs could also use 60% material, but the yield would be significantly lower (about 1/4 to 1/5) than if the same design used 90% material.
• Practical Constraints:
  • Size and Weight: A bomb made with 60% uranium requires a much larger "critical mass" than one made with 90% material. This often makes the final weapon too heavy or bulky for typical ballistic missiles, though it could still be delivered via shipping container or heavy aircraft.
  • Technical Difficulty: While the physics allows for it, achieving a successful detonation with lower-enrichment material requires precise engineering to ensure the chain reaction occurs fast enough before the device blows itself apart prematurely

"Little Boy" was dropped from a plane over Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I'm not sure which. (It could have been Little Boy 1 and Little Boy 2, which sounds like it was in honor of JinxyPat.)

Your post notes that it would require "heavy aircraft" to deliver such a bomb. Assuming Iran has any airplanes remaining, particularly "heavy aircraft" (I'm thinking C-130), what do you suppose are the chances that such aircraft gets more than 500 feet off the ground? I'm thinking there are three chances: slim, none, and fat.

All of the foregoing assumes that Iran can readily dig up all of this enriched uranium from the bomb crater overlying it, and that the bombing did not destroy, alter, or scatter it.