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

US - Iran - Israel | Hostilities May Breakout Shortly | Feb. 2nd-28th | Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.
NuclearID said:
☢️🇮🇷🔎
IAEA DG Rafael Grossi says Iran’s declared roughly 400 kg of uranium enriched to just above 60% is believed to remain buried under bombed underground sites at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. He warns the stockpile could theoretically be enough for a few, maybe up to a dozen nuclear devices if further enriched, but inspectors have been blocked for months and the agency cannot confirm without physical access.
Click to expand...
You can already build a nuclear bomb with 60% enriched 235U. You'd need approximately 100 kg of it (see chart below).
Note: 100 kg (220 lbs) of uranium sounds like a lot, but in reality the sphere would be about the size of a toaster. Uranium is twice as dense as lead, and about as dense as gold - i.e. much more dense than any common substance we're used to in our everyday lives.

Further enrichment just leads to better miniaturization and more cost-efficient payloads - but 60% is well within the range for a realistic (if crude) weapon.

1770990527626.png
 
Just based on some quick reading.
If anyone disagrees please correct me.

60% enriched uranium is not feasible for current Iranian ballistic missiles. Or really any for that matter.
Gun type detonation plus all the additional components and explosive compound to trigger the fission process. It would be too large for IRBM. Possibly only a 1kt fission device
Fatman and little boy used an average enrichment amount of 80%. Fatman weighed 4600kg. Iranian current ballistic lift capacity is 1800kg. 90% is required for a thermonuclear detonation.

Smuggling a bomb of that size wouldn’t be easy either. Iran also has no current ability to deliver by plane either except an airliner.

None of this discounts Irans purposes for enriching uranium to this level. For medical purposes 20% suffices.
Electric generation 20% or less.
So the problem remains. Either the Iranians have been woefully inept or hampered in enriching truly weapons grade material. Or they have something very well hidden in the basement closet

Yes I used Grok, I did not feel like reading through pages and pages of published material to get this information.
As I said feel free to correct if you disagree
 
Publius said:
Just based on some quick reading.
If anyone disagrees please correct me.

60% enriched uranium is not feasible for current Iranian ballistic missiles. Or really any for that matter.
Gun type detonation plus all the additional components and explosive compound to trigger the fission process. It would be too large for IRBM. Possibly only a 1kt fission device
Fatman and little boy used an average enrichment amount of 80%. Fatman weighed 4600kg. Iranian current ballistic lift capacity is 1800kg. 90% is required for a thermonuclear detonation. Smuggling a bomb of that size wouldn’t be easy either. Iran also has no current ability to deliver by plane either except an airliner.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are quite correct: this kind of weapon would be unsuitable for delivery by missile - which is, obviously, the most convenient way to deliver a nuclear payload to an intended target. It's a big part of why it wouldn't make sense for Iran to convert their existing uranium stockpile into warheads (another reason is that this would be a highly wasteful use of enriched uranium - at 60% enrichment, the stockpile would be barely enough for four low-grade bombs). Nevertheless, should further enrichment prove unfeasible - e.g. in the face of US airstrikes - they retain the option to work with what they have.

Perhaps I should have been more precise and followed in Jacques Leblanc's footsteps - he's the author of the oft-ridiculed statement: "I wouldn't exactly call it a bomb. It is a device which explodes.", and those words make more sense when you consider the above. 👆

As for why Iran has 60% enriched uranium to begin with - I don't think anyone in their right mind would dispute the fact that Iran has an undeclared nuclear weapons program - and has had one for a long while.
 
NuclearID said:
🇮🇷🇷🇺🇨🇳🗣️
Iranian state network Alalam says Russia and China are urging US restraint on Iran. It cites Russia’s Sergei Ryabkov claiming Moscow and Beijing are working to create conditions for potential US & Iran talks via Arab intermediaries, and China’s Wang Yi warning against a new conflict (Munich setting).
Click to expand...
I have to say I'm puzzled. Dragging the US into a war with Iran would be very beneficial for both Russia and China. I don't see what they could possibly get out of a deal that outweighs this.
 
Socom7 said:
I have to say I'm puzzled. Dragging the US into a war with Iran would be very beneficial for both Russia and China. I don't see what they could possibly get out of a deal that outweighs this.
Click to expand...
It's good public relations (PR). They say they want the US to show restraint so that they seem more dedicated to peace in international public opinion (obviously this applies more to China than Russia due to Ukraine). They also retain the facade of at least supporting their "friend" Iran. China and Russia risk losing influence internationally if they stay silent. China needs good PR to help minimize the likelihood of some US-aligned nations moving against China (economically or militarily) in the event of an invasion of Taiwan in 2027 or 2028.
 
teekay99 said:
It's good public relations (PR). They say they want the US to show restraint so that they seem more dedicated to peace in international public opinion (obviously this applies more to China than Russia due to Ukraine). They also retain the facade of at least supporting their "friend" Iran. China and Russia risk losing influence internationally if they stay silent. China needs good PR to help minimize the likelihood of some US-aligned nations moving against China (economically or militarily) in the event of an invasion of Taiwan in 2027 or 2028.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point. Course, this has to be weighed against the risk of losing face in case a war ensues anyway, but you're quite right - taking umbrage costs them nothing, and makes for good PR, while also making it seem like they did not push their "ally" under the bus (even though they did).
 
Socom7 said:
Course, this has to be weighed against the risk of losing face in case a war ensues anyway
Click to expand...
True.
But did Russia or China significantly lose any prestige after the American "apprehension" of Maduro in Venezuela? Remember China's statement about an all weather strategic partnership (or something to that effect)? I don't think China lost much following Maduro's capture.

To your point, Iran could be slightly different since China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil and losing influence in Iran after losing influence in Venezuela might raise some eyebrows on the international stage
 
teekay99 said:
True.
But did Russia or China significantly lose any prestige after the American "apprehension" of Maduro in Venezuela? Remember China's statement about an all weather strategic partnership (or something to that effect)? I don't think China lost much following Maduro's capture.

To your point, Iran could be slightly different since China is the largest buyer of Iranian oil and losing influence in Iran after losing influence in Venezuela might raise some eyebrows on the international stage
Click to expand...
Iran is very different for both Russia and China.For Russia it is of strategic - national security reasons eg. Caucases. Last thing Russia wants is bs from the south .
China it is the belt and road etc. Both want peace and stability in the area for trade and growth of which the west see as dangerous due to false perception of losing control, power and greed.
 
Socom7 said:
Yes, you are quite correct: this kind of weapon would be unsuitable for delivery by missile - which is, obviously, the most convenient way to deliver a nuclear payload to an intended target. It's a big part of why it wouldn't make sense for Iran to convert their existing uranium stockpile into warheads (another reason is that this would be a highly wasteful use of enriched uranium - at 60% enrichment, the stockpile would be barely enough for four low-grade bombs). Nevertheless, should further enrichment prove unfeasible - e.g. in the face of US airstrikes - they retain the option to work with what they have.

Perhaps I should have been more precise and followed in Jacques Leblanc's footsteps - he's the author of the oft-ridiculed statement: "I wouldn't exactly call it a bomb. It is a device which explodes.", and those words make more sense when you consider the above. 👆

As for why Iran has 60% enriched uranium to begin with - I don't think anyone in their right mind would dispute the fact that Iran has an undeclared nuclear weapons program - and has had one for a long while.
Click to expand...
I never said it wouldn’t go boom did I?
I simply observed that delivering one could not be accomplished as many customarily envision a nuke warhead is delivered.
 
Yingyang said:
Iran is very different for both Russia and China.For Russia it is of strategic - national security reasons eg. Caucases. Last thing Russia wants is bs from the south .
China it is the belt and road etc. Both want peace and stability in the area for trade and growth of which the west see as dangerous due to false perception of losing control, power and greed.
Click to expand...
🪞
 
From what I am seeing, it looks like the calculus/tone has changed between the US and Iran a bit. Trump issued a one month deadline for Iran to capitulate, or he will begin striking military targets.

I believe this to be truth. The amount of restraint shown thus far has been remarkable.

The evacuations of the bases in the area, as well as the surging of assets to the theater indicate that there is a real possibility of an Iranian preemptive strike. If I were Iran, I would see this as a one month chance to prepare to conduct a preemptive strike.

Israel is also a wildcard. We don’t know what they are going to do, or how deep they have entrenched mossad operatives and equipment into Iran. We already saw some signs of Israeli sabotage during the second Iranian crisis. I doubt we would see another “pager” operation. It would be something different. Stuxnet version 2?

The pentagon is likely slow walking us when it comes to the “possibility” of a longer protracted engagement. It’s probably gonna happen. Maybe not Iraq but 2.0, but several months. Up to the midterms perhaps.

Anyways… these are the musings of a man dozing before bed. Enjoy the analysis.
 
Spyglass said:
From what I am seeing, it looks like the calculus/tone has changed between the US and Iran a bit. Trump issued a one month deadline for Iran to capitulate, or he will begin striking military targets.

I believe this to be truth. The amount of restraint shown thus far has been remarkable.

The evacuations of the bases in the area, as well as the surging of assets to the theater indicate that there is a real possibility of an Iranian preemptive strike. If I were Iran, I would see this as a one month chance to prepare to conduct a preemptive strike.

Israel is also a wildcard. We don’t know what they are going to do, or how deep they have entrenched mossad operatives and equipment into Iran. We already saw some signs of Israeli sabotage during the second Iranian crisis. I doubt we would see another “pager” operation. It would be something different. Stuxnet version 2?

The pentagon is likely slow walking us when it comes to the “possibility” of a longer protracted engagement. It’s probably gonna happen. Maybe not Iraq but 2.0, but several months. Up to the midterms perhaps.

Anyways… these are the musings of a man dozing before bed. Enjoy the analysis.
Click to expand...
I found the following Reuters article this morning that seemingly supports your argument above.

Exclusive-US military preparing for potentially weeks-long Iran operations
 
NuclearID said:
🇺🇸🇮🇷⚓
Israel Hayom, citing a Bloomberg interview, says US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated Trump is “ready” to meet Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei if requested, and framed deploying a second US carrier as deterrence to prevent Iran from striking US forces or bases and triggering a wider escalation. Rubio reiterated the US position that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon.

🔗⤵️
https://twitter.com/x/status/2022755233126854946
Click to expand...
I doubt this will ever happen under the current regime. I saw a Simon Whistler video recently that basically argued that Iranians are sticklers for diplomatic protocol. Like meets with like (so ambassadors meet ambassadors , presidents meet presidents, etc). In Iran's opinion, no county on earth has a Supreme Leader or "God's representative" in the state apparatus. Therefore no country has an equal for the Ayatollah to meet during diplomatic meetings. That makes negotiations with Iran tough if all decisions must be made by someone who does not participate in negotiations by design.
 
Yingyang said:
I think Iran is capable of hitting an aircraft carrier and rendering it useless . But my question is should they sink one what is plan for a rescue mission of say 3000 -4000+ sailors?
Click to expand...
Whatever it is, hopefully it involves a substantial and crippling retaliatory strike on Iranian military assets.
 
teekay99 said:
Whatever it is, hopefully it involves a substantial and crippling retaliatory strike on Iranian military assets.
Click to expand...
Actually sinking a aircraft carrier which houses nuclear weapons warrants a nuclear response, not conventional. Aircraft carrier is appart of triad. You attack nuclear systems you get a plenty of nukes shoved up your ass to put it bluntly.

👉Iran sinks a aircraft carrier and suddenly your going to have vast sprawling sheets of green irradiated glass across vast areas of the Iranian landscape. This isn't wishful thinking, this is pretty open/public knowledge of the resulting consequences of a nation sinking a aircraft carrier.

Nuclear response does not require being nuked. Simply attacking nuclear triad/response infrastructure can warrant a nuclear attack. Aircraft carriers are a corner stone to the nuclear triad infrastructure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom