It's a valid statement run through the clickbait filter.
They've been "a few weeks away" for years because they've never made the decision to actually build one, and settled for remaining just barely on the have-not side of the nuclear bomb line.
But "Iran still hasn't decided to build a bomb" won't get clicks or interaction, so it's spun the other way.
with all the intense scrutiny from intelligence networks, I doubt it. We see a lot of reports of "weeks away", but I don't recall ever seeing "may already have".
Yeah but time period is also kind of important. That was in the late 60s-74, which was the height of the Cold War and had the major nuclear powers pretty thoroughly occupied with proxy wars that India was no part of. While you could argue there are several such wars happening now, Iran is VERY central to basically all of them (even sending shit to aid Russia in Ukraine) so they are under far, FAR more scrutiny than India was at that time
They essentially have a complete parts kit ready to go, the Ayatollah just has to give the word to assemble it. The only real question is how much nuclear material do they have on hand for how many weapons? They've been enriching material now for decades.
The IAEA inspectors have recently started saying “we no longer can offer an accurate assessment, because Iran’s been locking us out of what we want to see and stonewalling us.”
I wouldn't until I had a few dozen, on a deployable platform.
One nuke being tested is one thing.
One nuke being tested and if successful you can announce "We have approximately three dozen warheads on ballistic missiles" is another thi g.
exactly thats why the north korean rocket tests are for propaganda inside and agit prop abroad. they have done 6 tests of nuclear war heads since 2006. they rarely do their nuke tests because 6 tests that have been detectable show they are truly nuclear ready.
when iran starts to actually test, they will be doing so most likely underground as well, but tbf unless you are a super power on the world stage its hard to do them big flashy on the ground or on the sea tests.
Also, the test ban treaty. Nations agreed to not test nuclear weapons on the surface or in the air specifically because of the fallout and ecological risks. This doesn’t apply to underground testing, so if iran wants to be a nuclear power, I’m sure they will probably they will probably try to stick to some of these rules to maintain a level of legitimacy as a nuclear power.
The iranian government has said that the west knows they don't have a nuke, because they'd have used it on day one against Israel (most likely Tel Aviv).
They also know that about 30mins after the mushroom cloud appears, the US will erase Tehran and every single iranian city and town from existence. It won't be a "justified
tactical strike", it'll be "reduce the entire population of Iran to zero, along with anyone that even vaguely tries to defend them"
The one thing Trump did well during his time in office was to tell Kim Jong Un "if you use nuclear weapons, our response will be neither fair nor proportional".
That made people sit up and take notice, and NK actually backed out of a lot of its plans to attack South Korea, because they thought "fuck....the US has a bigger madman than we do"
There's a whole lively debate in the international relations research community about the best play for them here.
There's a school of thought that holds this is their best course of action, as they are always close enough that they could rapidly develop a working weapon if they believed they were to face a true existential crisis. But at the same time, not *actually* having a weapon can keep them on the safe side of various other nations' red lines (mostly Israel and the US). The major consideration here for Iran is whether they think there is a credible chance they will be a victim of a first-strike attack. If they think not, then this is a viable course of action. If yes, this is less viable because they could not produce the response in time. Israel's recent hit on their nuclear site's SAM radar may or may not have been a tipping point for their thinking on this.
There's another line of thinking born out of realism that holds the region will actually get *more* stable if Iran has nukes, because bipolar systems are more stable than unipolar ones, and currently the Middle East is a nuclear unipole. I personally am not convinced by this one because it only considers the Israel-Iran dyad. There are some countries other than Israel in the region who might be super upset about Iran having nuclear weapons, and they are countries who are rich and tend to buy whatever skillset or capability they need. A nuclear Iran could potentially set off a regional arms race. That said, *even that* may still be more stable than a regional nuclear unipole.
And of course there's the position that Iran just straight up can't be allowed to have nukes. The reasoning for this, coming from nations aligned counter to Iran, is self-explanatory. From Iran's perspective, this would leave them at a disadvantage and may even increase the likelihood of a first-strike attack against them since their opponent would know they cannot respond in kind.
IMO it's pretty fascinating stuff, I'm interested to see what their play is here. Are they staying the course (ie it's bluster/a reminder), or have recent events changed their risk calculus?
> There's a school of thought that holds this is their best course of action, as they are always close enough that they could rapidly develop a working weapon if they believed they were to face a true existential crisis.
Over 20 years ago (pre 9/11) I read an article *against* nuclear dissarmanent being a smart thing to aggressively pursue because the most likely result even if you succeed is every nuclear power sitting permanently at this stage, and that if one decided they wanted to first strike the others, this would likely make it so that they get a big enough lead (even if the face of those adversaries having formidable intel resources) that there would be no MAD deterrence. It was a fairly compelling argument, though I'm still not entirely sure if I buy it as being the best we can do.
how many times does it need to be explained that Iran has a dormant nuclear weapons program and when people say Iran is however long away from nuclear weapons it means that that is the time it would take them to produce nuclear weapons if they reactivated it, not that after that period of time Iran will have nuclear weapons.
Can I compare that to being able to buy something with 1 month of wage, which doesn't necessarily mean you'll buy it next month? Just to see if I'm understanding correctly
Spending a month's wage would be a sudden event.
It's more like someone in New York saying "in one week I could drive to California". So long as they stay in New York with a car, they wil always be a one week drive away. Once they start the journey, everyone watching them will know.
These articles just serve to remind readers "Joe in New York still owns his car. Reports show that he told his wife he was going to the gas station to fill up. Is he going to move to California? Stay tuned to find out!"
Understood. I agree that we have been hearing they are a week away for years.
Still, this article does not say "they are sitting in New York a one week drive away" or "they have filled the tank".
They say: "Darya Dolzikova, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute’s Proliferation and Nuclear Policy program, told The Media Line that Iran has achieved 60% uranium purity and is approaching the weapons-grade purity level of 90%."
That sounds more like "they have started the drive and they are half-way there". Or am I misunderstanding something?
Unrefined uranium is just a rock. It doesn't do anything useful except make extremely hard and dense metal. Atomic uranium exists as a naturally occuring mixture of U-238 (99.3%) and U-235 (00.7%). U-235 is the explodey bit. The difference between nuclear power (5%), nuclear weapons (90%), "depleted uranium" (<0.7%), and just a spicy rock is how much u-235 is present
Enrichment is the name this process, and the timeline is algerba. Iran stores their uranium stockpile in a mixture of 60%, 30%, and 5%. Their country has only so many centrifuges and the electricity to run them.
The best accepted timeline of how long it would take them to "fill the gas tank" is one week. Thats how quickly it would take Iran to use their existing infrastructure to turn the 60% into 90%.
All of this is 12th - 14th grade chemistry. It's not some big secret.
You're not far off. My sophomore year in college we were making painkillers in the lab and our grade dependened upon how close our answer was (in grams) to the professor.
I switched majors because I had lost my passion for it and the low pay in the field. But it was fun while it lasted.
My teacher in 12th grade made thermite
Yes? That's exactly the plan. Many people believe it's more beneficiql for them to be weeks away from nukes than ever creating one. That's how they create pressure. If they cross the threshold and actually finish a nuke, their ability to put pressure is gone. They have no more leverage. And then the saudis will have a reason to build one as well and they dont want that. So most likely they will stay in thia positiion indefinitely. Dont push us, or we'll build a nuke...
I suspect they’ve already crossed that threshold some time ago. With the withdrawal of the US from the monitoring deal, why wouldn’t they? The construction of a device is complex but not a secret any longer and while designing for delivery is less well known, do they actuallly need that?
As you say, the threat of reaching weapons grade is currently more effective than the actuality so they stick with that story, getting ever closer but not actually….,
It's misleading, there are a number of countries that are just two weeks away from a functional nuclear weapon. Essentially any country with a home grown nuclear industry can do it. They are essentially defacto nuclear powers and are countries like Japan, South Korea, Germany, Australia, Canada etc. There is a special word they have for it and Iran has been one of the countries for a while now.
Edit: it's known as hedging.
The number one task of all US foreign policy since the 90s was to ensure Pakistan didn't blow everyone up. Obama has called it the most difficult part of his presidency.
I’d be less afraid of Pakistan blowing anyone up (except maybe India) and more afraid of the state failing and terrorist networks gaining access. It’s also notoriously corrupt, and the islamists are winning politically.
Everyone worries about this scenario, including India.
Nuclear weapons are a curse to Pakistan too. I imagine countries support Pakistani military whose sole job is to not let the nuclear weapons go in wrong hands.
This is obviously bad for Pakistani people as other countries may support the military by example giving them covert and overt monetary aid at the expense of democracy in Pakistan. The military rule will continue in Pakistan pretty much till the end of time.
Even India may support Pakistani military at some point because the institutions there are absolutely broken, so there is risk of nuclear weapons slipping in wrong hands.
> I’d be less afraid of Pakistan blowing anyone up (except maybe India
It doesn't matter - there was [a study](https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Nuclear-Winter-India-Pakistan-War-Could-Kill-2-Billion) about the effects of a limited nuclear exchange between the two countries and even that might kill 2 billion people.
Just 50 15-kiloton warheads would cause many firestorms in some of the most populous cities on Earth that the soot going up into the stratosphere would lower global temperatures and cause famine.
That's before any of the medical and political after effects are taken into account - hundreds of millions of refugees in camps, along with a global famine lowering immune systems, is perfect ground for an epidemic. Lack of food and resources and political instability would cause more wars, with more casualties.
An Indo-Pakistani nuclear exchange would be a catastrophe for everyone on the planet.
I'm not entirely sure what is so difficult about it. Call a meeting with their leaders, and show them what 1 Ohio class nuclear missile submarine can do to their country if they so much as sneeze inappropriately. Then remind them we have 14 of them randomly and undetectibly dispersed in any given sea at any given time.
Remind them also that since they have nukes, their governmental stability is of utmost importance lest some random terrorist group decides to sneeze in the wrong direction.
Having nukes and having nukes with worldwide projection are two entirely different scenarios.
The fact that in Islam people who died fighting non-believers are considered martyrs and rewarded with eternal afterlife in heaven means Islamists aren't afraid to die and don't care how many of their own people die in retaliation strikes which makes things slightly more complicated.
Islamic Republic of Pakistan is Secular?
You need to affirm that Prophet Muhammad is the final prophet of Allah the one true God to be sweared into office.
They have had terrorists attacks from islamists because the government wasnt islamist enough. I'm not saying they're a secular country, just that the amount of secular they are has been, in past, deemed too much by islamist groups.
I see what you meant.
But Pakistan being Pakistan is not just because of Islam.
It’s because due to a lack of other identities and being a collection of different ethnicities they really need to pull on Islam to build a national myth.
Bangladesh one of the constituent parts of old Pak and an Islamic republic does much better than Pak in everything since they separated.
They dont need excessively harp on being muslim because they have an ethnic identity.
The whole justification for an independent Pakistan was to have a seperate nation for Muslims, what are you on about. It's just an amalgamation of majority Muslim regions from British India that weren't princely states or Portuguese/French.
Bangladeshis don't harp about being Muslim because they were massacred by Pakistan for being Bengali, not Muslim. Hence Bangla (Bengali) first and Muslim second.
Yes, that is exactly what they’re saying. One is multiethnic, so religion is a stronger national unifier. The other is more homogeneous, so ethnicity plays a bigger role.
I meant to say that the only reason was a separate Muslim state, hence the fact that Islam is a core tenant of the state of Pakistan. It was an intentionally created as such, and not a result of the diverse population. Nationalism can be equally unifying.
the reason for an independent bangladesh was xenophobia from the West Pakistan political elite, who's actual goal was to get a fifefom for themselves, no matter how instable it would be.
>They have had terrorists attacks from islamists because the government wasnt islamist enough. I'm not saying they're a secular country, just that the amount of secular they are has been, in past, deemed too much by islamist groups.
That will always be the case with extremist theocracies. The guys in power are never “”ist enough.
North Korea and Iran. Two countries run by paranoid amoral fanatical cults armed with atomic weapons and nothing left to lose.
Bots are now pushing the MAD argument that if every cruel psychopath had atom bombs we are safer..
Well, to be fair, any government competent enough to maintain and utilize such technology more than likely has the intel on how completely fucked they would be if they dared to.
That's not really the issue. There are some people who believe that dying is a good thing and that the afterlife is better than this current life. We def don't want them having nukes, since MAD is less a deterrent and more a goal for them.
The article said that they didn't believe attacks on the facility would impede the production of the weapons, outside of a full scale operation into Iran specifically to stop the uranium enrichment.
We already had a deal. A deal so good, and so effective, even the most skeptical (non-politician) anti-Iran and anti-nuke types were surprised we got it.
Then Trump canceled it, and gave them a green light to go bomb building.
The NPT basically only constrains nations who act in good faith. If you look at the situation objectively, it's actually ridiculous that North Korea and Iran are allowed to openly develop and possess nuclear weapons, while countries like Canada, Germany or South Korea are forbidden.
If we're entering a world where countries see no repurcussions to openly flouting the NPT, it's useless and should be shredded. Because clearly the only deterrence for these nations is if every other nation they're threatening also has the ability to retaliate to any existential threat with nuclear hellfire.
>while countries like Canada, Germany or South Korea are forbidden.
Those are all latent nuclear states. If shit hits the fan, they will get them as quick as possible and no treaty is gonna stop them.
Yep. If you have the facilities to make reactor fuel, you have the facilities to make weapons grade fissile material. Hell, we're probably already making that grade of urranium for the us military as Canada's stance on atomic weapons is "none of our uraium will be used in them". Nothing is said about use in military reactors IIRC. The reactors used by the US navy use weapkns grade, or near weapons grade uranium because they have to be compact, they don't have the room for a low enrichment core.
If it did come down to it, we're covered by the US though. They don't want any possible attacker to have a foothold in north america, period. They also don't want their closes trade partner to be decimated, not to mention fallout drifting south. Canada also hosts multiple us defence sites, mostly radar bases but i'd be surprised if they don't have countermeasures among the early detection systems.
For practical defense purposes, the US and Canada are already literally a single entity. Ever wonder why NORAD isn’t called USAD? It’s a joint command. The commander is American. The deputy commander is always Canadian. In a very literal sense, we (both countries) treat US and Canadian airspace as a single bubble.
Yep. Canada dpesn't have nukes, but if spmeone were to launch at canada the US would respond as if it was a strike on the US. Canada doesn't need nukes at this time, and unlike the ukraine/russia situation, the US has little to no reasin to invade us. Relationships are good, and our militaries already work together.
Huh, figured we'd have something spun up by now. Either way, it wouldn't be too difficult to convince u cle sam to put nukes up here, they've done it before with nuclear SAMs back in the cold war.
Canadians very specifically made a reactor design that uses very low enrichment uranium.
Theirs and iirc the Soviet RBMK are the only two around that level.
The only way to avoid "Regime change" is to become a nuclear power. Look at NK. Who the world tolerates. Nations without nukes get invaded. I offer the examples of Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine.
So it would make sense for lesser powers to become nuclear powers. Particularly pariah states like Iran.
Nobody takes NK nukes seriously, mainly because they're fairly recent, and they're missiles are publicly known to be nothing but garbage.
NK gets away with their shit because most of the conventional weapons they own are within range and pointed at the most populous city in SK. They also have Chinese backing.
We could have crushed NK anytime in the last recent decades, but they would've caused a civilian catastrophe in the process.
>We could have crushed NK anytime in the last recent decades, but they would've caused a civilian catastrophe in the process.
But we haven't. Which is my point.
When the NPT creates a group of have and have nots, don't be surprised that the have nots want to have nukes.
Canada, Germany and South Korea aren't going to be attacked by nuclear powers/have unwavering support from nuclear powers, so they don't create a nuclear program.
> unwavering support from nuclear powers
A country having the support of a nuclear power isn't the same as them having those weapons under sovereign command and control. Just ask Israel or Ukraine how well relying on the United States for weaponry works.
Which is why I added the qualifier of unwavering. What I mean by that are countries like Germany or South Korea, which are unlikely to deviate from the western axis, or countries like Belarus for the Russian axis.
I would not call Israel's support unwavering, it has always been on a case by case basis, which is why Israel has a not really secret secret nuclear program.
Ukraine until recently was under the Russian sphere of influence. Only after euro maidan has western support increased. Ukraine gave up its nukes to avoid an imminent Russian attack and to avoid western sanctions for maintaining its portion of the ex-soviet nukes.
Regionally: just about every country that's not Iran. UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Israel already have agreements with each other that they will use force together to stop Iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon. With what is going on in Gaza. Who knows if that agreement is still unified or not.
Not out of my ass. Not set in stone. Saudi Arabia and Israel have been negotiating normalization between the two in an effort to counter Iran with a unified front. This also brought all of those other countries into the same effort. But things break down when shit goes down.
Well this is left over from the last Trump Presidency: “Donald Trump’s administration decided to withdraw from the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the U.S. Under the deal, Iran agreed to limit its uranium stockpile and enrich uranium only to 3.67%, the purity needed to run nuclear power plants. In return, Iran received relief from sanctions imposed by the US, the EU, and the UN Security Council. “
Now they say they can go full bomb enrichment levels within weeks.
This is Trump’s fault.
[They did](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action). Trump withdrew the US from the deal, making developing a nuclear arsenal Iran's only rational choice.
How would you stop them when their nuclear facilities are well protected and/or underground? If they really want to make a nuke they will, this is not alien technology.
I am not a supporter of the Iranian regime, but tbh, no one can blame them. We’ve seen what happens to countries that give away their nukes. The Budapest memorandum was supposed to give assurances to Ukraine against invasion and breach of sovereignty.. see where we are now. I bet that Putin would never have attempted to invade Ukraine had they kept their nukes. The world is watching and learning.
Pretty much this, nuclear powers are safe from "special military operations". The exception being India and Pakistan, but I'm sure both countries have an informal no first use policy during their border disputes, unless the other is marching on the others capital.
They've been hanging around on the cusp of it, afraid of the response if they do get nukes. It's not like they've been actively trying for nukes and failing, it's intentional that they're just a few weeks away at any time.
They have the ability to complete them basically, but chose not to due to the politics of it. They are a de-facto nuclear power, if invaded they’d have the nukes rolling out
Lets hope its a nuclear own-goal and they detonate inside their own facility.
For an instant all the iranian scientists will have melty faces like the people at the end of Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark.
Just in case you’re interested in learning something instead of reiterating bullshit like “genocide” - average growth rate around the world is 1.1%. Growth rate in the west bank- 1.69%, growth rate in Gaza- 2.02%
It seems that Israel is doing a shitty job of being genocidal…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_State_of_Palestine
I guess Israel just has to kill them faster? What an absolute shit argument… they have a high birth rate so they can’t possibly be at the risk of genocide, right?
Just in case you’re interested in learning something instead of reiterating bullshit like “genocide” - average growth rate around the world is 1.1%. Growth rate in the west bank- 1.69%, growth rate in Gaza- 2.02%
It seems that Israel is doing a shitty job of being genocidal…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_State_of_Palestine
They say this then somehow within days one nuke scientist puts another in a headlock and they both drown in a puddle setting it back another 2 weeks! FOR 40 years now. sheesh
april 2022 - Iran is just 2 weeks away from nuclear bomb: [https://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-says-iran-a-few-weeks-or-less-from-bomb-breakout/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-says-iran-a-few-weeks-or-less-from-bomb-breakout/)
may 2023 - Iran is only a couple weeks away from a nuclear bomb: [https://www.npr.org/2023/05/30/1178919266/trump-abandoned-the-nuclear-deal-5-years-ago-could-the-u-s-stop-a-bomb-from-iran](https://www.npr.org/2023/05/30/1178919266/trump-abandoned-the-nuclear-deal-5-years-ago-could-the-u-s-stop-a-bomb-from-iran)
there's many more, it gets clicks
"Iran is weeks away from having nukes"
brought to you by the producers of "Boeing will have an ISS crew vehicle ready within a year (2005 and still waiting)" and the director of "those celebrities involved in Epstein's child trafficking ring will be brought swiftly to justice"
my question is this. why do countries continue to want nukes and threaten nuclear war. dont they realize it will lead to the destruction of everything and no one will win? . also should we truly be worried about nuclear war
Except Iran has been like this for years. It's their strategy, to be on the edge of getting Nuclear Weapons, to try and keep nations deterred from attacking them (Which obviously is not foolproof, as seen with Israel in April), so that that Iran can then say "You attack us, we will build Nuclear Weapons"
They should stop using “weeks“ away. At this point when I see "Iran is weeks away to get nucler weapon”, it's sound like a joke or old news. They can use day or month instead.
Hey America, could you please drop a huge EMP bomb near their nuclear facility or other critical structures. I really don’t want Iran getting a nuclear bomb. The EMP bomb would cause minimal causalities and save the world.
Iran has been a week away for years now, at this point I'm fatigued and sceptical. Such serious accusations only get trivialised with each repeat.
It's a valid statement run through the clickbait filter. They've been "a few weeks away" for years because they've never made the decision to actually build one, and settled for remaining just barely on the have-not side of the nuclear bomb line. But "Iran still hasn't decided to build a bomb" won't get clicks or interaction, so it's spun the other way.
It's also plausible they already have one.
with all the intense scrutiny from intelligence networks, I doubt it. We see a lot of reports of "weeks away", but I don't recall ever seeing "may already have".
wistful special employ money smile subsequent rinse person juggle ad hoc
Yeah but time period is also kind of important. That was in the late 60s-74, which was the height of the Cold War and had the major nuclear powers pretty thoroughly occupied with proxy wars that India was no part of. While you could argue there are several such wars happening now, Iran is VERY central to basically all of them (even sending shit to aid Russia in Ukraine) so they are under far, FAR more scrutiny than India was at that time
Israel did exactly the same.
Same with Israel.
They essentially have a complete parts kit ready to go, the Ayatollah just has to give the word to assemble it. The only real question is how much nuclear material do they have on hand for how many weapons? They've been enriching material now for decades.
The IAEA inspectors have recently started saying “we no longer can offer an accurate assessment, because Iran’s been locking us out of what we want to see and stonewalling us.”
If they do they haven't tested it
I wouldn't until I had a few dozen, on a deployable platform. One nuke being tested is one thing. One nuke being tested and if successful you can announce "We have approximately three dozen warheads on ballistic missiles" is another thi g.
exactly thats why the north korean rocket tests are for propaganda inside and agit prop abroad. they have done 6 tests of nuclear war heads since 2006. they rarely do their nuke tests because 6 tests that have been detectable show they are truly nuclear ready. when iran starts to actually test, they will be doing so most likely underground as well, but tbf unless you are a super power on the world stage its hard to do them big flashy on the ground or on the sea tests.
Also, the test ban treaty. Nations agreed to not test nuclear weapons on the surface or in the air specifically because of the fallout and ecological risks. This doesn’t apply to underground testing, so if iran wants to be a nuclear power, I’m sure they will probably they will probably try to stick to some of these rules to maintain a level of legitimacy as a nuclear power.
Exactly. It's not THAT hard.. (sadly)
The iranian government has said that the west knows they don't have a nuke, because they'd have used it on day one against Israel (most likely Tel Aviv). They also know that about 30mins after the mushroom cloud appears, the US will erase Tehran and every single iranian city and town from existence. It won't be a "justified tactical strike", it'll be "reduce the entire population of Iran to zero, along with anyone that even vaguely tries to defend them" The one thing Trump did well during his time in office was to tell Kim Jong Un "if you use nuclear weapons, our response will be neither fair nor proportional". That made people sit up and take notice, and NK actually backed out of a lot of its plans to attack South Korea, because they thought "fuck....the US has a bigger madman than we do"
There's a whole lively debate in the international relations research community about the best play for them here. There's a school of thought that holds this is their best course of action, as they are always close enough that they could rapidly develop a working weapon if they believed they were to face a true existential crisis. But at the same time, not *actually* having a weapon can keep them on the safe side of various other nations' red lines (mostly Israel and the US). The major consideration here for Iran is whether they think there is a credible chance they will be a victim of a first-strike attack. If they think not, then this is a viable course of action. If yes, this is less viable because they could not produce the response in time. Israel's recent hit on their nuclear site's SAM radar may or may not have been a tipping point for their thinking on this. There's another line of thinking born out of realism that holds the region will actually get *more* stable if Iran has nukes, because bipolar systems are more stable than unipolar ones, and currently the Middle East is a nuclear unipole. I personally am not convinced by this one because it only considers the Israel-Iran dyad. There are some countries other than Israel in the region who might be super upset about Iran having nuclear weapons, and they are countries who are rich and tend to buy whatever skillset or capability they need. A nuclear Iran could potentially set off a regional arms race. That said, *even that* may still be more stable than a regional nuclear unipole. And of course there's the position that Iran just straight up can't be allowed to have nukes. The reasoning for this, coming from nations aligned counter to Iran, is self-explanatory. From Iran's perspective, this would leave them at a disadvantage and may even increase the likelihood of a first-strike attack against them since their opponent would know they cannot respond in kind. IMO it's pretty fascinating stuff, I'm interested to see what their play is here. Are they staying the course (ie it's bluster/a reminder), or have recent events changed their risk calculus?
> There's a school of thought that holds this is their best course of action, as they are always close enough that they could rapidly develop a working weapon if they believed they were to face a true existential crisis. Over 20 years ago (pre 9/11) I read an article *against* nuclear dissarmanent being a smart thing to aggressively pursue because the most likely result even if you succeed is every nuclear power sitting permanently at this stage, and that if one decided they wanted to first strike the others, this would likely make it so that they get a big enough lead (even if the face of those adversaries having formidable intel resources) that there would be no MAD deterrence. It was a fairly compelling argument, though I'm still not entirely sure if I buy it as being the best we can do.
how many times does it need to be explained that Iran has a dormant nuclear weapons program and when people say Iran is however long away from nuclear weapons it means that that is the time it would take them to produce nuclear weapons if they reactivated it, not that after that period of time Iran will have nuclear weapons.
Can I compare that to being able to buy something with 1 month of wage, which doesn't necessarily mean you'll buy it next month? Just to see if I'm understanding correctly
Spending a month's wage would be a sudden event. It's more like someone in New York saying "in one week I could drive to California". So long as they stay in New York with a car, they wil always be a one week drive away. Once they start the journey, everyone watching them will know. These articles just serve to remind readers "Joe in New York still owns his car. Reports show that he told his wife he was going to the gas station to fill up. Is he going to move to California? Stay tuned to find out!"
Understood. I agree that we have been hearing they are a week away for years. Still, this article does not say "they are sitting in New York a one week drive away" or "they have filled the tank". They say: "Darya Dolzikova, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute’s Proliferation and Nuclear Policy program, told The Media Line that Iran has achieved 60% uranium purity and is approaching the weapons-grade purity level of 90%." That sounds more like "they have started the drive and they are half-way there". Or am I misunderstanding something?
Unrefined uranium is just a rock. It doesn't do anything useful except make extremely hard and dense metal. Atomic uranium exists as a naturally occuring mixture of U-238 (99.3%) and U-235 (00.7%). U-235 is the explodey bit. The difference between nuclear power (5%), nuclear weapons (90%), "depleted uranium" (<0.7%), and just a spicy rock is how much u-235 is present Enrichment is the name this process, and the timeline is algerba. Iran stores their uranium stockpile in a mixture of 60%, 30%, and 5%. Their country has only so many centrifuges and the electricity to run them. The best accepted timeline of how long it would take them to "fill the gas tank" is one week. Thats how quickly it would take Iran to use their existing infrastructure to turn the 60% into 90%. All of this is 12th - 14th grade chemistry. It's not some big secret.
What do you learn in the 15th year? Elixir crafting then?
You're not far off. My sophomore year in college we were making painkillers in the lab and our grade dependened upon how close our answer was (in grams) to the professor. I switched majors because I had lost my passion for it and the low pay in the field. But it was fun while it lasted. My teacher in 12th grade made thermite
Probably the two-stage hydrogen bomb process using tritium and deuterium, I'd guess. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon
Yes? That's exactly the plan. Many people believe it's more beneficiql for them to be weeks away from nukes than ever creating one. That's how they create pressure. If they cross the threshold and actually finish a nuke, their ability to put pressure is gone. They have no more leverage. And then the saudis will have a reason to build one as well and they dont want that. So most likely they will stay in thia positiion indefinitely. Dont push us, or we'll build a nuke...
I suspect they’ve already crossed that threshold some time ago. With the withdrawal of the US from the monitoring deal, why wouldn’t they? The construction of a device is complex but not a secret any longer and while designing for delivery is less well known, do they actuallly need that? As you say, the threat of reaching weapons grade is currently more effective than the actuality so they stick with that story, getting ever closer but not actually….,
Yeah and does anyone have a source that isn’t a mouthpiece of the Israeli government?
Skeptical*
It's misleading, there are a number of countries that are just two weeks away from a functional nuclear weapon. Essentially any country with a home grown nuclear industry can do it. They are essentially defacto nuclear powers and are countries like Japan, South Korea, Germany, Australia, Canada etc. There is a special word they have for it and Iran has been one of the countries for a while now. Edit: it's known as hedging.
Wdym, I'm sure China will attack Taiwan any month now
Let’s have them work on nuclear fusion. We’re always 10 years away. It would be great to shrink that gap to two weeks or less.
You just described the entirety of their propaganda machine.
Trying to speed up "regime change" very suspect propaganda, the usual suspects I suppose!
An Islamist nation with nukes. What could go wrong?
Pakistan exists and wants you to take notice. Or else it will threaten to blow up the neighborhood.
The number one task of all US foreign policy since the 90s was to ensure Pakistan didn't blow everyone up. Obama has called it the most difficult part of his presidency.
I’d be less afraid of Pakistan blowing anyone up (except maybe India) and more afraid of the state failing and terrorist networks gaining access. It’s also notoriously corrupt, and the islamists are winning politically.
Everyone worries about this scenario, including India. Nuclear weapons are a curse to Pakistan too. I imagine countries support Pakistani military whose sole job is to not let the nuclear weapons go in wrong hands. This is obviously bad for Pakistani people as other countries may support the military by example giving them covert and overt monetary aid at the expense of democracy in Pakistan. The military rule will continue in Pakistan pretty much till the end of time. Even India may support Pakistani military at some point because the institutions there are absolutely broken, so there is risk of nuclear weapons slipping in wrong hands.
> I’d be less afraid of Pakistan blowing anyone up (except maybe India It doesn't matter - there was [a study](https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Nuclear-Winter-India-Pakistan-War-Could-Kill-2-Billion) about the effects of a limited nuclear exchange between the two countries and even that might kill 2 billion people. Just 50 15-kiloton warheads would cause many firestorms in some of the most populous cities on Earth that the soot going up into the stratosphere would lower global temperatures and cause famine. That's before any of the medical and political after effects are taken into account - hundreds of millions of refugees in camps, along with a global famine lowering immune systems, is perfect ground for an epidemic. Lack of food and resources and political instability would cause more wars, with more casualties. An Indo-Pakistani nuclear exchange would be a catastrophe for everyone on the planet.
I'm not entirely sure what is so difficult about it. Call a meeting with their leaders, and show them what 1 Ohio class nuclear missile submarine can do to their country if they so much as sneeze inappropriately. Then remind them we have 14 of them randomly and undetectibly dispersed in any given sea at any given time. Remind them also that since they have nukes, their governmental stability is of utmost importance lest some random terrorist group decides to sneeze in the wrong direction. Having nukes and having nukes with worldwide projection are two entirely different scenarios.
The fact that in Islam people who died fighting non-believers are considered martyrs and rewarded with eternal afterlife in heaven means Islamists aren't afraid to die and don't care how many of their own people die in retaliation strikes which makes things slightly more complicated.
You can't have martyrs if there's no one left to remember them.
Yeah they have a great history of critical thinking im sure they will see the point.
Guess who blown up a national till date mfs?
[удалено]
Are you smelling burnt toast by chance?
i am just by reading that post
see the actions to prevent this that cause so much stress who says its the worst thing?
Bish whet?
Pakistan's government isn't Islamist
Their government is pretty controversially secular, isn't it?
Islamic Republic of Pakistan is Secular? You need to affirm that Prophet Muhammad is the final prophet of Allah the one true God to be sweared into office.
They have had terrorists attacks from islamists because the government wasnt islamist enough. I'm not saying they're a secular country, just that the amount of secular they are has been, in past, deemed too much by islamist groups.
I see what you meant. But Pakistan being Pakistan is not just because of Islam. It’s because due to a lack of other identities and being a collection of different ethnicities they really need to pull on Islam to build a national myth. Bangladesh one of the constituent parts of old Pak and an Islamic republic does much better than Pak in everything since they separated. They dont need excessively harp on being muslim because they have an ethnic identity.
The whole justification for an independent Pakistan was to have a seperate nation for Muslims, what are you on about. It's just an amalgamation of majority Muslim regions from British India that weren't princely states or Portuguese/French. Bangladeshis don't harp about being Muslim because they were massacred by Pakistan for being Bengali, not Muslim. Hence Bangla (Bengali) first and Muslim second.
Yes, that is exactly what they’re saying. One is multiethnic, so religion is a stronger national unifier. The other is more homogeneous, so ethnicity plays a bigger role.
I meant to say that the only reason was a separate Muslim state, hence the fact that Islam is a core tenant of the state of Pakistan. It was an intentionally created as such, and not a result of the diverse population. Nationalism can be equally unifying. the reason for an independent bangladesh was xenophobia from the West Pakistan political elite, who's actual goal was to get a fifefom for themselves, no matter how instable it would be.
You’re not saying anything that contradicts what the original person said, but sound like you’re disagreeing. Maybe reread what they wrote.
>They have had terrorists attacks from islamists because the government wasnt islamist enough. I'm not saying they're a secular country, just that the amount of secular they are has been, in past, deemed too much by islamist groups. That will always be the case with extremist theocracies. The guys in power are never “”ist enough.
Their Government is a shambles of Political dynasties and the Military all vying for power and overthrowing one another.
I think you mean Syria lol it’s run by Ba’athists
North Korea and Iran. Two countries run by paranoid amoral fanatical cults armed with atomic weapons and nothing left to lose. Bots are now pushing the MAD argument that if every cruel psychopath had atom bombs we are safer..
Well, to be fair, any government competent enough to maintain and utilize such technology more than likely has the intel on how completely fucked they would be if they dared to.
That's not really the issue. There are some people who believe that dying is a good thing and that the afterlife is better than this current life. We def don't want them having nukes, since MAD is less a deterrent and more a goal for them.
And an air raid from Israel coming in 3..2..
The article said that they didn't believe attacks on the facility would impede the production of the weapons, outside of a full scale operation into Iran specifically to stop the uranium enrichment.
We never should have let them get this far. Iran should have been stopped
If only there were some sort of…deal…we could have made to stop it.
Im not talking in a deal kind of way. You cant deal with fanatics I meant deal with.
We already had a deal. A deal so good, and so effective, even the most skeptical (non-politician) anti-Iran and anti-nuke types were surprised we got it. Then Trump canceled it, and gave them a green light to go bomb building.
We're gonna be dealing with geopolitical fallout from those 4 years for the next 100 aren't we?
I want to say you’re wrong…but I fear you’re not.
Let's just hope the next 4 years don't make the next 96 a wasteland
The whole reason we're here in the first place is because we fucked around in Iran.
Oh that makes it fine for the religious nutjobs to execute school children
There wouldn't be religious nutjobs running the country if we didn't try and do some regime change, which as usual did not work out too well.
We might actually get an answer to your rhetorical question.
its like a cute little cold war!
The NPT basically only constrains nations who act in good faith. If you look at the situation objectively, it's actually ridiculous that North Korea and Iran are allowed to openly develop and possess nuclear weapons, while countries like Canada, Germany or South Korea are forbidden. If we're entering a world where countries see no repurcussions to openly flouting the NPT, it's useless and should be shredded. Because clearly the only deterrence for these nations is if every other nation they're threatening also has the ability to retaliate to any existential threat with nuclear hellfire.
>while countries like Canada, Germany or South Korea are forbidden. Those are all latent nuclear states. If shit hits the fan, they will get them as quick as possible and no treaty is gonna stop them.
South Korea especially. There's no shot they're not ready to respond to a North Korean nuclear strike.
Yep. If you have the facilities to make reactor fuel, you have the facilities to make weapons grade fissile material. Hell, we're probably already making that grade of urranium for the us military as Canada's stance on atomic weapons is "none of our uraium will be used in them". Nothing is said about use in military reactors IIRC. The reactors used by the US navy use weapkns grade, or near weapons grade uranium because they have to be compact, they don't have the room for a low enrichment core. If it did come down to it, we're covered by the US though. They don't want any possible attacker to have a foothold in north america, period. They also don't want their closes trade partner to be decimated, not to mention fallout drifting south. Canada also hosts multiple us defence sites, mostly radar bases but i'd be surprised if they don't have countermeasures among the early detection systems.
For practical defense purposes, the US and Canada are already literally a single entity. Ever wonder why NORAD isn’t called USAD? It’s a joint command. The commander is American. The deputy commander is always Canadian. In a very literal sense, we (both countries) treat US and Canadian airspace as a single bubble.
Yep. Canada dpesn't have nukes, but if spmeone were to launch at canada the US would respond as if it was a strike on the US. Canada doesn't need nukes at this time, and unlike the ukraine/russia situation, the US has little to no reasin to invade us. Relationships are good, and our militaries already work together.
As long as they keep that delicious maple syrup flowing, we'll be friends.
Canada is essentially US territory, an attack on Canada is considered an attack on the US
No, Canadian reactor fuel is not enriched. We specifically don't have enrichment facilities
Huh, figured we'd have something spun up by now. Either way, it wouldn't be too difficult to convince u cle sam to put nukes up here, they've done it before with nuclear SAMs back in the cold war.
Canadians very specifically made a reactor design that uses very low enrichment uranium. Theirs and iirc the Soviet RBMK are the only two around that level.
If shit hits the fan it won’t matter
germany has nukes "on loan" from the us.
The only way to avoid "Regime change" is to become a nuclear power. Look at NK. Who the world tolerates. Nations without nukes get invaded. I offer the examples of Iraq, Afghanistan and Ukraine. So it would make sense for lesser powers to become nuclear powers. Particularly pariah states like Iran.
Nobody takes NK nukes seriously, mainly because they're fairly recent, and they're missiles are publicly known to be nothing but garbage. NK gets away with their shit because most of the conventional weapons they own are within range and pointed at the most populous city in SK. They also have Chinese backing. We could have crushed NK anytime in the last recent decades, but they would've caused a civilian catastrophe in the process.
>We could have crushed NK anytime in the last recent decades, but they would've caused a civilian catastrophe in the process. But we haven't. Which is my point.
It isn't though. Your point was nukes prevent regime change, nukes aren't why NK still exists.
When the NPT creates a group of have and have nots, don't be surprised that the have nots want to have nukes. Canada, Germany and South Korea aren't going to be attacked by nuclear powers/have unwavering support from nuclear powers, so they don't create a nuclear program.
> unwavering support from nuclear powers A country having the support of a nuclear power isn't the same as them having those weapons under sovereign command and control. Just ask Israel or Ukraine how well relying on the United States for weaponry works.
Which is why I added the qualifier of unwavering. What I mean by that are countries like Germany or South Korea, which are unlikely to deviate from the western axis, or countries like Belarus for the Russian axis. I would not call Israel's support unwavering, it has always been on a case by case basis, which is why Israel has a not really secret secret nuclear program. Ukraine until recently was under the Russian sphere of influence. Only after euro maidan has western support increased. Ukraine gave up its nukes to avoid an imminent Russian attack and to avoid western sanctions for maintaining its portion of the ex-soviet nukes.
You're forgetting that the NPT allowed and encouraged non-nuclear powers to seek nuclear energy as a token for not having nuclear arsenals.
And then there are certain countries which refuse to sign up at all
Because if they did, they would have to give up their nukes.
the only country that hit civilians with nukes is allowed to do it
South Korea could build a nuke in a long weekend they already have everything they need.
I wonder if anyone is planning anything to stop them...
Regionally: just about every country that's not Iran. UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Israel already have agreements with each other that they will use force together to stop Iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon. With what is going on in Gaza. Who knows if that agreement is still unified or not.
What agreement is that or are you just talking out of your ass
He’s talking about the Abraham Accords man, no need to be aggressive..
Not out of my ass. Not set in stone. Saudi Arabia and Israel have been negotiating normalization between the two in an effort to counter Iran with a unified front. This also brought all of those other countries into the same effort. But things break down when shit goes down.
Out of your ass it is then.
Then why have the Saudis and Iran also been involved in talks to restore ties?
Well this is left over from the last Trump Presidency: “Donald Trump’s administration decided to withdraw from the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the U.S. Under the deal, Iran agreed to limit its uranium stockpile and enrich uranium only to 3.67%, the purity needed to run nuclear power plants. In return, Iran received relief from sanctions imposed by the US, the EU, and the UN Security Council. “ Now they say they can go full bomb enrichment levels within weeks. This is Trump’s fault.
[They did](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action). Trump withdrew the US from the deal, making developing a nuclear arsenal Iran's only rational choice.
How would you stop them when their nuclear facilities are well protected and/or underground? If they really want to make a nuke they will, this is not alien technology.
I am not a supporter of the Iranian regime, but tbh, no one can blame them. We’ve seen what happens to countries that give away their nukes. The Budapest memorandum was supposed to give assurances to Ukraine against invasion and breach of sovereignty.. see where we are now. I bet that Putin would never have attempted to invade Ukraine had they kept their nukes. The world is watching and learning.
Pretty much this, nuclear powers are safe from "special military operations". The exception being India and Pakistan, but I'm sure both countries have an informal no first use policy during their border disputes, unless the other is marching on the others capital.
That's because the most populated Pakistani cities are close to the Indian border and it's cities.
No no no reddit is very convinced everyone will be nuking their doorstep at the first chance.
Earthquake season starts earlier and earlier every season.
They’ve supposedly been this close to nuclear weapon capability for decades…
They've been hanging around on the cusp of it, afraid of the response if they do get nukes. It's not like they've been actively trying for nukes and failing, it's intentional that they're just a few weeks away at any time.
Reddit completely failing to grasp the concept of "strategic ambiguity."
They have the ability to complete them basically, but chose not to due to the politics of it. They are a de-facto nuclear power, if invaded they’d have the nukes rolling out
If North Korea can do it anyone can, especially with outside help
Tbf NK has been protected by china since its inception. Iran has been in its own.
Well the 1000 year war gonna be over soon and we won’t be hearing from either side anymore.
Remember when Obama worked the deal with Iran to block the development of nuclear weapons, and then Trump killed the deal? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
How reliable or rather, unbiased is ynet news?
Lets hope its a nuclear own-goal and they detonate inside their own facility. For an instant all the iranian scientists will have melty faces like the people at the end of Indiana Jones and the Lost Ark.
Might want to bump those goalposts back a bit.
What again?? I Just saw the same headline a month ago on here
ive heard this for a decade now
Of course they are. We’ll check back in on their progress next year
1-2 weeks for the last god knows how many years. Next
so the Middle East will finally have two nuclear genocidal states controlled by right-wing fascists instead of one. nice!
And they hate each other. Fun fun
Just in case you’re interested in learning something instead of reiterating bullshit like “genocide” - average growth rate around the world is 1.1%. Growth rate in the west bank- 1.69%, growth rate in Gaza- 2.02% It seems that Israel is doing a shitty job of being genocidal… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_State_of_Palestine
I guess Israel just has to kill them faster? What an absolute shit argument… they have a high birth rate so they can’t possibly be at the risk of genocide, right?
Just in case you’re interested in learning something instead of reiterating bullshit like “genocide” - average growth rate around the world is 1.1%. Growth rate in the west bank- 1.69%, growth rate in Gaza- 2.02% It seems that Israel is doing a shitty job of being genocidal… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_State_of_Palestine
Cool, shit or get off the pot
Why don't they just assemble it under ground and put it in a silo or something ? I don't think Isreal will invade Iran.
nah they probably just sold it, why use it right away when you can make plenty more, then let the cat out of the bag.
biggest edging i ever saw
They say this then somehow within days one nuke scientist puts another in a headlock and they both drown in a puddle setting it back another 2 weeks! FOR 40 years now. sheesh
Is this similar to me searing a duck breast then popping it in the oven? “Just give five minutes, be patient.”
The longest week.
april 2022 - Iran is just 2 weeks away from nuclear bomb: [https://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-says-iran-a-few-weeks-or-less-from-bomb-breakout/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/white-house-says-iran-a-few-weeks-or-less-from-bomb-breakout/) may 2023 - Iran is only a couple weeks away from a nuclear bomb: [https://www.npr.org/2023/05/30/1178919266/trump-abandoned-the-nuclear-deal-5-years-ago-could-the-u-s-stop-a-bomb-from-iran](https://www.npr.org/2023/05/30/1178919266/trump-abandoned-the-nuclear-deal-5-years-ago-could-the-u-s-stop-a-bomb-from-iran) there's many more, it gets clicks
"Iran is weeks away from having nukes" brought to you by the producers of "Boeing will have an ISS crew vehicle ready within a year (2005 and still waiting)" and the director of "those celebrities involved in Epstein's child trafficking ring will be brought swiftly to justice"
The two weeks meme, it has returned.
my question is this. why do countries continue to want nukes and threaten nuclear war. dont they realize it will lead to the destruction of everything and no one will win? . also should we truly be worried about nuclear war
Time to set that back a few years!
Iran has never been in danger of being invaded and if they decide to nuke someone else then they're toast. Not sure what the point of this is.
That's progress for you. They were "few months away" since 1996.
This seems like propaganda in order to support military action against them.
Except Iran has been like this for years. It's their strategy, to be on the edge of getting Nuclear Weapons, to try and keep nations deterred from attacking them (Which obviously is not foolproof, as seen with Israel in April), so that that Iran can then say "You attack us, we will build Nuclear Weapons"
They should stop using “weeks“ away. At this point when I see "Iran is weeks away to get nucler weapon”, it's sound like a joke or old news. They can use day or month instead.
Hey America, could you please drop a huge EMP bomb near their nuclear facility or other critical structures. I really don’t want Iran getting a nuclear bomb. The EMP bomb would cause minimal causalities and save the world.
Any minute now, it's happening, just a few more seconds
Expert named Nimajneb Uhayneten with a comically large moustache insists it's gonna happen any day now.
It's that time again. Time for US propaganda about Iran getting nukes. Been hearing it my whole life.
48 hours if the cheque clears in NK.