Hacker News Reader

Comment by mschuster91 | Hacker News Reader

> Today, the fear is back: with al-Qaida resurgent, North Korea out of control, and nuclear rumours emanating from any number of "rogue states",

North Korea indeed got the bomb three years after the article was written - the interesting question is what kept Iran? They didn't manage that feat in 20 years (thankfully, to add).

View on HN

> what kept Iran

Stuxnet (which caused Iran's ultra-centrifuges to self destruct), the deal to not further their nuclear ambitions (JCPOA) which bought a lot of time, the fairly credible threat that Israel will commit a first strike against any Iranian facility if they feel like it is imminent.

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

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

The right choice for Iran is to stay close enough to completion of a bomb that it's a very credible threat to stave off US regime change; while staying far enough away to not provoke Israel into a preemptive attack. So it's not a technology calculation, but a geo political one.

As the other commenter says - North Korea isn't connected to the internet in any meaningful way so it's impossible to cyber sabotage their gas centrifuges remotely. Without the correct type of uranium, you can't build an a-bomb.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet: "typically introduced to the target environment via an infected USB flash drive, thus crossing any air gap."

IMHO being connected to the internet or not doesn't play a role here.

Iran’s air gapped computers for their centrifuges were hit. Stuxnet and its deployment remains one of the greatest hacks we know about. Kim Zetter wrote a good book about it.

Iran's centrifuges weren't connected either. However Stuxnet was indeed successful.

> Without the correct type of uranium, you can't build an a-bomb.

Unless you have some plutonium.

Pu-239 comes from uranium. It’s not a naturally occurring element.

But then it sidesteps the need for a U235 enrichment process. One can start from the wrong type of uranium. The downside is you can't use the simple gun-type assembly for the warhead. You must be able to assemble a tricky implosion-type device.

But doesn’t it just then mean you have to enrich deuterium? At some point you’re still needing a massive industrialized process, you just have to pick your position, no?

Graphite also works. The first ever man-made nuclear reactor used natural uranium with graphite as moderator. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1

I’m aware of CP-1, but has graphite been used in conjunction with any reactors using natural uranium as fuel?

Iran weren't trying to build a weapon, according to US intelligence. They want to do peaceful nuclear research. The Ayatollah also put a fatwa on nuclear weapons, calling them "satanic".

Cyber sabotage (see the documentary zero days)

It's arguably also in their interest strategically to be in a position where they are perpetually a couple of months away from making one but not to actually take that final step.

I don't think it is unreasonable to consider that they have the material stocked away somewhere ready to go. But more balanced gameplan makes more sense to them than to NK.

After all many other countries in area have nuclear weapons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com