How Close Is Iran to a Nuclear Weapon? | Hacker News Reader

How Close Is Iran to a Nuclear Weapon?

wired.com

29 pointsn0pe_p0pe23 comments

> ... Centrifuges allow scientists to separate the two uranium isotopes because the heavier isotope—uranium-238—is pushed to the outside of the rapidly spinning machine while the uranium-235 clusters in the middle. By repeating this process over and over again, scientists can push concentrations of uranium-235 from less than 1 percent to above 90 percent.

It's worth mentioning that the centrifuge operates on a gaseous form of uranium: UF6. As the centrifuge spins, the slightly lower density of 235-UF6 relative to 238-UF6 causes the former to remain toward the center of the centrifuge with the latter drawn toward the outside.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zippe-type_centrifuge#Centrifu...

The hard part is that the centrifuge must be spun at very high speed (90,000 RPM), or close to mach 2 linear velocity. The materials and manufacture must be top quality to withstand the forces involved.

It's also worth pointing out that this sensitivity was exploited by Stuxnet - a US-developed cyber attack that caused Iran's centrifuges to disable certain protocols that prevented damage during the high-RPM spinning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

“Does that mean Iran is now racing to develop a nuclear weapon? Probably not,”

Not really sure what the point of this article is, with the amount of reasons they gave in this article you could just as easily say “probably so”.

Why wouldn’t they? And why would they publish the real numbers if they were?

If they are within striking distance of someone else who does have the bomb then they damn well better be making them. Someone put me in check here but I think this fact has more substance than this entire article...

They very loudly did not announce a resumption of the weapons program. They're probably trying to leave a door open, wait a year and see if aa return to normalcy is possible with a new administration.

Right now, they have most of Europe sympathetic to their side, because it's rather obviously not them arbitrarily breaking treaties, or calling for the demolition of cultural sites (a tactic last used by the Taliban).

> [...] the demolition of cultural sites (a tactic last used by the Taliban)

Hasn't ISIS been doing that more recently than the Taliban?

If you want to go there, Saudi Arabia is still doing it. You just don’t hear about it as much.

I didn’t take away much from the article. I fear theocratic governments and don’t want any of them to have nuclear capabilities. I’m also afraid that any country like the US having unchecked power and a population whose opinions are easily malleable is a danger to other countries. We decide who is a “terrorist” or who isn’t. We decide who to sanction or who can trade and travel freely. Our “allies” mostly fall in line and support any policy we have, although that seems to be fading a bit recently... but I digress.

About 4000 miles to North Korea (https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-iran-to-north-k...)

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=iran-north+korea+nuclear+cooperati...

Depends where the US, British and French submarines are, but I doubt it's more than 20 minutes.

The sooner Iran gets one, the sooner they can stop getting targeted by US / Israeli aggression. I'd help them if I could.

I don't support the repressive Iranian regime, however, there's no denying the US has been a terrible bully. I feel really bad for their people.

The US overthrew their popular, secular government in the 50s and installed a brutal puppet government. The Iranian revolution in the 70s was Islamic mainly because the Mosques were the few places the puppet government did not fully monitor, so the religious rulers were the only ones who could gather and strategize a plan.

The US has been trying to make an example out of Iran since the 70s, for the crime of not accepting the puppet government.

The level of propaganda going on in the US is unbelievable. The vast majority of Americans have no idea about the sequence of events that I laid out. I don't blame you for feeling this way, it's a very unfair situation for the Iranian people.

I completely agree, I don't really support the regime, but I support them more than the US shenanigans in the region. I believe that once the US stops making an example of out Iran, change will happen organically within the nation.

Iran has had a nuclear weapons program probably since 1981, although more in hope than substance in that decade. Then with Russian aid since the Nineties. Stuxnet didn't amount to more than a speedbump. And yet, still no nuke. Nukes are hard, but obviously there is a bigger problem. Most likely their inability to attract/keep the best minds under their theocracy. Their scientist's exploding problem doesn't help.

Whatever the reason, roughly three decades, with Russian aid for most, and still no nuke says their program is deeply flawed.

How about the three years under a strict moratorium, with ongoing inspections? At the beginning of which they shipped 80% of all radioactive material, and 100% of the highly enriched stuff out of the country?

Could that be a reason for their setback?

It's not a "setback". Their program has failed to produce. They didn't produce results for decades prior to the treaty.

Being realistic took the US three years to develop a nuclear weapon in the 1940's. That's one side of things. The other is South Africa and North Korea all developed nuclear weapons. As did Pakistan. And Israel.

Given that the only explanation that makes sense vis Iran is they haven't developed nukes because they don't want to violate the Non-Proliferation treaty.

Where did they ship the 100% of highly enriched stuff?

We were touting Iran having nuclear power in Nat'l Geo magazines from the 70s.

You can bet money they've had a nuclear arsenal for some time.

>You can bet money they've had a nuclear arsenal for some time.

If true, why would they not announce it?

Do you just go up to a Texas Holdem poker table and tell everyone you've got two kings before the first part of the river is even dealt?

It's called playing your cards to your chest.

There is no point in keeping nuclear warheads secret. Not a single nation with nuclear capability has ever been invaded since the bomb was invented. It is geopolitically infeasible.

North Korea knows this well. If Iran got the nuke and told us, their general would be alive today and the chance of war would be near 0. Nobody would touch a nuclear Iran.

"There is no point in keeping nuclear warheads secret."

Keeping bigger countries off your ass is one reason. Future surprise attacks are another reason. An emergency defensive show of force right before an impending invasion would be another.

There're plenty of reasons to keep almost anything a secret.

This is absurd. You keep "bigger countries off your ass" specifically by informing them you have nuclear warheads. The whole point is to inform them. How exactly would you deter them otherwise? This has been established for decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory#Rational_det...

And if Iran has secret nukes, how do you possibly explain Stuxnet?

"You keep "bigger countries off your ass" specifically by informing them you have nuclear warheads."

Not if you don't want tons of spies all up in your shit, you don't.

"And if Iran has secret nukes, how do you possibly explain Stuxnet?"

As if that stops them from secretly importing refined material.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com