• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

IAEA chief Grossi condemns Iran's 'unprecedented' barring of inspectors

william

william

Power Poster IV
Donator
Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 3, 2021
VIENNA, Sept 16 (Reuters) - U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi on Saturday condemned Iran's "disproportionate and unprecedented" move to bar multiple inspectors assigned to the country, hindering its oversight of Tehran's atomic activities.

Iran's move is a response to a call led by the United States, Britain, France and Germany at the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board of Governors this week for Tehran to cooperate immediately with the IAEA on issues including explaining uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

www.reuters.com

IAEA chief Grossi condemns Iran's 'unprecedented' barring of inspectors

U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi on Saturday condemned Iran's "disproportionate and unprecedented" move to bar multiple inspectors assigned to the country, hindering its oversight of Tehran's atomic activities.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
I just did some maths and I calculated that 128.3kg of U-235 60% is only enough for 1 bomb, with a lot left over to spare.
128.3kg*0.6 = 76.98kg of pure U-235, let's say you only enrich 85%. 76.98*1.25 = 96kg. That's not enough for 2 bombs. It's enough for 1, but not for 2. It's almost enough for 2, but not quite there.

Manhattan Project scientists were so confident in the performance of the “Little Boy” uranium bomb that the device was not even tested before it was used. This 15-kt weapon was airdropped on 06 August 1945 at Hiroshima, Japan. The device contained 64.1 kg of highly enriched uranium, with an average enrichment of 80%. The six bombs built by the Republic of South Africa were gun-assembled and used 50kg of uranium enriched to between 80 percent and 93 percent in the isotope U-235.
 
Last edited:
42kg to 60% = 25.2kg pure U-235
25.2 *1.11 = 28kg at 90%

How the hell are you supposed to make a bomb from 28kg 90% U-235, that's what the article is claiming. I just don't see how that's enough for a bomb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom