@WhimsicalChristian I think you're underestimating the extent to which Trump wants to undo absolutely everything done by Obama. Getting even with Obama (as Trump thinks of it) underpins everything for Trump, which is in itself underpinned by Trump's longstanding and fanatical anti-Black racism.
Do we have evidence that Iran was “within a month, even two weeks” of nuclear weapon capability, even ownership?
As well as the evidence @Hedgehog has just linked, there is the evidence in the New York Times link which I provided earlier. Israel argued that without an attack Iran could create a “shield of immunity” around the development its nuclear weapon capability.
That’s not what Trump is saying. And in that same link the CIA made nothing like that claim.
Do we have evidence that Iran was “within a month, even two weeks” of nuclear weapon capability, even ownership?
So what is the basis for his claim?
There's an excellent lecture by MIT professor Theodore Postol, who is a nuclear weapons expert, that explains why Iran has a nuclear deterrent right now without having refined uranium to the degree required to build a thermonuclear warhead.
It's an hour long lecture if you care to sit through it but his point is made in the first 20 minutes if you have the stomach to be thus far enlightened. I found it extremely uncomfortable to sit through myself.
Thanks AFF. Fascinating. Particularly the observation re the original US/Iran nuclear treaty.
I’m not entirely sure about the rapid underground transformation of Uranium hexafluoride to a uranium metal nugget but he could be right. It’s certainly true that the means of creation of small bombs to use fissile uranium is not that difficult and the design reasonably well known.
I suppose it’s also possible that the NY Times report is unclear about the rapidity of this risk and the comments on it.
The video does however give a bit more credibility to Trump’s “a month, maybe two weeks” scenario.
I guess it all depends on how accurately it portrays the Iranian capability in the tunnel. Perhaps the possible threat is more powerful than the execution?
Whatever AFF, that video link isn’t going to make sleep at night any easier.
A very interesting article on how the Trump administration is trying to use faith to justify the war in Iran. Using a msn link because the CNN article appears behind a paywall.
The designs for nuclear weapons are fairly well known in outline (some will even appear in text books). But, detailed designs needed to just assemble a bomb are going to be much harder for any state to obtain. Even with a detailed plan, a small bomb is not going to be easy to assemble, and will probably need to be tested. It gets easier the higher the enrichment level of uranium, probably anything below 80% is going to be useless for building a bomb (though it's theoretically possible), and above 90% gives options for making bombs without testing (the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a simple design which was so certain to work it was never tested). The IAEA report on the current state of Iranian nuclear programmes at the start of the year (because even after the bombing last year, Iran was adhering to their agreement to maintain international observation of their nuclear programme and to not progress work on nuclear weapons, says Iran has 440kg of 60% enriched uranium, which is significantly short of what's needed for a practical nuclear weapons (theoretically possible, but I doubt anyone has designed and tested a bomb with uranium at that low level of enrichment). So, to reach an actual bomb would need to put that through further enrichment, assuming Iran has significant numbers of centrifuges - and assuming that Iran doesn't have access to detailed plans for an efficient design (and the means of manufacturing that design, which will need to be very precisely engineered) that would give them enough for 4 or 5 simple bombs similar to the one dropped on Hiroshima.
The designs for nuclear weapons are fairly well known in outline (some will even appear in text books). But, detailed designs needed to just assemble a bomb are going to be much harder for any state to obtain. Even with a detailed plan, a small bomb is not going to be easy to assemble, and will probably need to be tested. It gets easier the higher the enrichment level of uranium, probably anything below 80% is going to be useless for building a bomb (though it's theoretically possible), and above 90% gives options for making bombs without testing (the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a simple design which was so certain to work it was never tested). The IAEA report on the current state of Iranian nuclear programmes at the start of the year (because even after the bombing last year, Iran was adhering to their agreement to maintain international observation of their nuclear programme and to not progress work on nuclear weapons, says Iran has 440kg of 60% enriched uranium, which is significantly short of what's needed for a practical nuclear weapons (theoretically possible, but I doubt anyone has designed and tested a bomb with uranium at that low level of enrichment). So, to reach an actual bomb would need to put that through further enrichment, assuming Iran has significant numbers of centrifuges - and assuming that Iran doesn't have access to detailed plans for an efficient design (and the means of manufacturing that design, which will need to be very precisely engineered) that would give them enough for 4 or 5 simple bombs similar to the one dropped on Hiroshima.
Is this your summary of Dr. Postol's lecture? Or is it your way of endorsing his lifetime body of work on ballistic and nuclear weapons technology?
Comments
@WhimsicalChristian I think you're underestimating the extent to which Trump wants to undo absolutely everything done by Obama. Getting even with Obama (as Trump thinks of it) underpins everything for Trump, which is in itself underpinned by Trump's longstanding and fanatical anti-Black racism.
As well as the evidence @Hedgehog has just linked, there is the evidence in the New York Times link which I provided earlier. Israel argued that without an attack Iran could create a “shield of immunity” around the development its nuclear weapon capability.
That’s not what Trump is saying. And in that same link the CIA made nothing like that claim.
So what is the basis for his claim?
There's an excellent lecture by MIT professor Theodore Postol, who is a nuclear weapons expert, that explains why Iran has a nuclear deterrent right now without having refined uranium to the degree required to build a thermonuclear warhead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtUobr7xGz4
It's an hour long lecture if you care to sit through it but his point is made in the first 20 minutes if you have the stomach to be thus far enlightened. I found it extremely uncomfortable to sit through myself.
AFF
I’m not entirely sure about the rapid underground transformation of Uranium hexafluoride to a uranium metal nugget but he could be right. It’s certainly true that the means of creation of small bombs to use fissile uranium is not that difficult and the design reasonably well known.
I suppose it’s also possible that the NY Times report is unclear about the rapidity of this risk and the comments on it.
The video does however give a bit more credibility to Trump’s “a month, maybe two weeks” scenario.
I guess it all depends on how accurately it portrays the Iranian capability in the tunnel. Perhaps the possible threat is more powerful than the execution?
Whatever AFF, that video link isn’t going to make sleep at night any easier.
Is this your summary of Dr. Postol's lecture? Or is it your way of endorsing his lifetime body of work on ballistic and nuclear weapons technology?
AFF
Look at Alan’s avatar! (I’m not sure if my title is out of date but he’s a nuclear physicist.)