Iran already has enough uranium enriched to up to 60%, if enriched further, to make three nuclear bombs,
Or in other words, "Iran doesn't have enough enriched uranium to make any nuclear bombs, but we're wording this pro-war propaganda in such a way that it sounds like they do"
It is unknown how much uranium they have enriched to 90%, but the IAEA have confirmed that at least 280kg have been enriched to 60%, and Iran is producing an additional 9kg per month from these facilities. I'm not overly familiar with how long the enrichment process will take to go from 60% to 90%, or even if it is a different process than their existing one.
But the jump from having sufficient materiel to having a functional physics package is extremely short and not at all complex - it's taught in AP Physics classes and well described on wikipedia.
Point being that they are potentially mere months away from having nuclear weapons.
I hope they get one! Everyone deserves a little something nice
Oh they will. Straight from the US war money machine
Iran also said that October 7th was payback for Soleimani. Only took three months to come up with that one. But here, there is a long way from having enough enriched uranium and having a workable device. Perhaps their friends the Russians can help with that, though.
Trump killed Soleimani and tore up a non proliferation treaty that was working. Remember that? All the while being cheered by the Saudis and Israelis.
Good thing 45 saved us from having a more peaceful and moderate Iran. Obviously the solution is to get upset at 46 over Gaza and put 45 back in. /s
There are no legitimate non-weapons applications of uranium enriched above 20%>
Most nuclear reactors that power ships are ~93% enriched.
There ARE non weapon application for uranium above 20%, just not very credible.
Fission detectors use a U5 90% coating
There are experimental reactors (I think in english they are call MTR) that are designed to work with U5 90%. Most of them were redesigned to operate with U5 20%.. or well... decommissioned. But I think there are still a few (1? 2?) of them operating.
Fast breeder reactors require a higher enrichment... but I think it is credible from 15 to 30%, idk
Note, I'm not arguing that Iran is aiming to produce A-Bombs
Honestly, the nuclear non-proliferation movement is dead and gone, and has been since February 2022 (really, since February 2014):
The Ukraine War has proven that nuclear weapons are the absolute final word in maintaining sovereignty, territorial integrity, and unilateral geopolitical power.
If Ukraine had any, Russia would not be able to prosecute the war without wildly disproportionate negative (nuclear) consequences from Ukraine.
If Russia didn’t have any, they would not be able to prosecute the war without proportionate negative (conventional; regime-change) internationally-driven consequences.
TL;DR: nuclear non-proliferation doesn’t work if you don’t strictly and vigorously enforce defense arrangements that are directly related to said non-proliferation.
Japan's also discussing restarting their nuclear weapons program
Nuclear non-proliferation was a failure
Everyone should want nukes
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/