Foreign Policy

ulukinatme

Carr for QB 2025!
Messages
31,516
Reaction score
17,382
The sense I've had is that Iran doesn't really want nukes (at least under Khomeini) but rather want to use the threat they could get one to get stuff/scare adversaries away.

It's now vome out that we dont k ow where Iran's enriched uranium is and have no way to eliminate all their centrifuges. We just thew a big rock at a Hornet's nest without a plan for what to do next.

View attachment 3059191

Well, can't see this going well for Iran. I'm seeing at least two paths forward: after seeing we mean business they decide to give up the Uranium and get serious about peace (Very unlikely). Other path is we continue hitting military targets in search of the remaining Uranium. I'm sure there's other paths as well, including other countries getting involved but I'm not sure a lot of countries want to directly help..
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,584
Reaction score
20,035
Well, can't see this going well for Iran. I'm seeing at least two paths forward: after seeing we mean business they decide to give up the Uranium and get serious about peace (Very unlikely). Other path is we continue hitting military targets in search of the remaining Uranium. I'm sure there's other paths as well, including other countries getting involved but I'm not sure a lot of countries want to directly help..
While we may not know its location, buy bombing those facilities, didn't we make it difficult for them to do anything with it?
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Market up, oil down, interest rates down. Oil markets have been acting like this will resolve quickly. The volume of people fully erect over bombing Iran is something else. Great job by Israel and the MIC - A+ work. I trust foreign governments even less than our own but I am sure this was the final two weeks to getting a weapon after thirty years of hearing that shit. All Trump needs to do now is dust off that "Mission Accomplished" banner.
 

PerthDomer

Well-known member
Messages
1,326
Reaction score
483
While we may not know its location, buy bombing those facilities, didn't we make it difficult for them to do anything with it?
We probably delayed their ability to get a bomb by months or years. We may have increased their resolve to get one though.

If Iran wants they could strike oil production in Iraq, Kuwait, or SA pretty easily. They could also attack tankers in the straight of Hormuz.

We could retaliate by taking their oil out or destroying their natural gas production.

We're stronger and can do more damage, but I think Trump probably blinks if oil starts spiking. 1000043592.jpg
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
While we may not know its location, buy bombing those facilities, didn't we make it difficult for them to do anything with it?

Anyone really think we would blow up all this enriched uranium? That would be toxic mess pinned on the good ole US of A. If they did move the goods - we had to have been able to monitor the radiation movement (maybe NDVA can chime in). If it is buried under a mountain maybe it the best spot to leak the least. There is no way we know if this facility was destroyed - we would never admit it wasn't and Iran would never admit it was.

On the other hand- blow that shit up outside the mountain and contaminate the area for a few generations seems like it would slow their program more than a couple of craters requiring rebuild of some access points. US never takes gloves all the way off, if you want to fight - fight to win. Bunch of neo-cons just jonesing to use these toys they bought and Bibi duped Trump into going along.
 

NDVirginia19

Rally
Messages
4,431
Reaction score
5,136
Anyone really think we would blow up all this enriched uranium? That would be toxic mess pinned on the good ole US of A. If they did move the goods - we had to have been able to monitor the radiation movement (maybe NDVA can chime in). If it is buried under a mountain maybe it the best spot to leak the least. There is no way we know if this facility was destroyed - we would never admit it wasn't and Iran would never admit it was.

On the other hand- blow that shit up outside the mountain and contaminate the area for a few generations seems like it would slow their program more than a couple of craters requiring rebuild of some access points. US never takes gloves all the way off, if you want to fight - fight to win. Bunch of neo-cons just jonesing to use these toys they bought and Bibi duped Trump into going along.
Uranium itself is not the nasty stuff. The reason it makes great fuel for fission is that U-235 has a half life of 700 million+ years. It only fissions if we want it to. The nastiness with nuclear power comes from the fission product daughters that have high activity. It's certainly not a good idea to blow up a Uranium stockpile open air, but it's not going to be a big environmental catastrophe, but more of a Non Proliferation concern of scattered enriched Uranium.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Uranium itself is not the nasty stuff. The reason it makes great fuel for fission is that U-235 has a half life of 700 million+ years. It only fissions if we want it to. The nastiness with nuclear power comes from the fission product daughters that have high activity. It's certainly not a good idea to blow up a Uranium stockpile open air, but it's not going to be a big environmental catastrophe, but more of a Non Proliferation concern of scattered enriched Uranium.

I expect there is 400kg of 60% enriched running around Iran as they scurried valuables out of that site in anticipation of trouble as soon as Israel lit them up ten days ago. That can't be good for non-proliferation either. I'd rather they had to collect it scattered around a known hillside than team lifting out of the back of a Tacoma.
 

NDVirginia19

Rally
Messages
4,431
Reaction score
5,136
I expect there is 400kg of 60% enriched running around Iran as they scurried valuables out of that site in anticipation of trouble as soon as Israel lit them up ten days ago. That can't be good for non-proliferation either. I'd rather they had to collect it scattered around a known hillside than team lifting out of the back of a Tacoma.
That assumes we don't know exactly where those Tacomas drove off to
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
That assumes we don't know exactly where those Tacomas drove off to

Flush them out swipe the goods would be the Tom Cruise Mission Impossible move.

Quick AI math - "The volume of 400 kg of 60% enriched uranium (in metallic form) is approximately 20,942 cm³. This is roughly equivalent to a cube with sides just under 27.6 cm long" - that seems way too small for a half ton brick of uranium. A ton of gold is about that big if my quick search is correct? Couple of heavy suitcases!
 

NDVirginia19

Rally
Messages
4,431
Reaction score
5,136
Flush them out swipe the goods would be the Tom Cruise Mission Impossible move.

Quick AI math - "The volume of 400 kg of 60% enriched uranium (in metallic form) is approximately 20,942 cm³. This is roughly equivalent to a cube with sides just under 27.6 cm long" - that seems way too small for a half ton brick of uranium. A ton of gold is about that big if my quick search is correct? Couple of heavy suitcases!
Uranium is I think the 5th most dense element. But they wouldn't just be transporting the enriched uranium out of the site. They would also likely be transporting out the tons and tons of depleted uranium they would have as well. Additionally, all other sorts of production materials with long lead times that they would want to protect and could feasibly move if they wanted to restart the process.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
Uranium is I think the 5th most dense element. But they wouldn't just be transporting the enriched uranium out of the site. They would also likely be transporting out the tons and tons of depleted uranium they would have as well. Additionally, all other sorts of production materials with long lead times that they would want to protect and could feasibly move if they wanted to restart the process.

My point is the stuff people are most worried about is pretty small and portable. Is it trackable via sensors? I don't know. Tom Cruise is going to have to recruit Saquon Barkley and Jalen Hurts to squat those cases with 400kg of enriched uranium though.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,584
Reaction score
20,035
I expect there is 400kg of 60% enriched running around Iran as they scurried valuables out of that site in anticipation of trouble as soon as Israel lit them up ten days ago. That can't be good for non-proliferation either. I'd rather they had to collect it scattered around a known hillside than team lifting out of the back of a Tacoma.
I have to believe they know where it is. When they have the intel to strategically drop a bomb to precisely wipe out a room full of Iranian leaders, I think they know.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
I have to believe they know where it is. When they have the intel to strategically drop a bomb to precisely wipe out a room full of Iranian leaders, I think they know.

Knowing where it is and securing it are two different things. I think NDVA is confirming my uninformed thought that "just blowing it all to hell" could create more problems than it solves even if it looks attractive to light up the heavy truck traffic that had been in and out of there recently.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
I deal with nuclear engineering, so yes I know about the purposes and uses of enriched uranium
Well then it seems you are being disingenuous or lying. This podcast completely shreds this whole idea that Iran was developing a nuclear bomb as it is being presented and largely backs up what the former military officer in the Fox News op ed I posted had to say.



“they could have enriched up to 90-plus percent all along. They've enriched up to 60% as a bargaining chip to negotiate away. In order to try to get the sanctions lifted and try to get the United States back in the deal, it's the same thing they did in the Obama years.”

“And the only reason Obama even needed to do the deal in 2015 was because essentially the world led by Israel or the West led by Israel were essentially just pretending the NPT didn't exist, pretending that Iran didn't already have a safeguards agreement with the IAEA and the Israelis were threatening an aggressive war then.”

“Uranium bombs are virtually always a gun type nuke, like Fat Man that they dropped on Hiroshima, which is essentially a giant shotgun inside that bomb, firing a highly-enriched, weapons-grade-enriched uranium slug into a target of the same. That causes a super-critical reaction. They didn't even test that bomb.

It's 1940s technology, simple stuff. They didn't test that. The Trinity test was of the Nagasaki bomb, which was a plutonium implosion bomb.

That's the kind of bomb that can be miniaturized and married to a missile. However, the Iranians have no plutonium route to the bomb, because even though they still do have one heavy water reactor at Boucher and it produces plutonium waste, they do not have the facility required to reprocess that waste, get the impurities out to make it possible to use for weapons fuel. Under the JCPOA, which they're still in this part of it with the Russians, is that every two or three years or so, they shut down the reactor and the Russians will come and get all the plutonium waste and take it away.

Their plutonium route to the bomb did not exist at all.”

“Their uranium route to the bomb was delayed for at least one year. Then, as I say, at the end of that year, they would have had enough to make one bomb with, but then no way to deliver it other than slap it on the back of a flatbed truck or something like that.”
 
Last edited:

Fbolt

I've been around
Messages
6,932
Reaction score
2,253
Well then it seems you are being disingenuous or lying. This podcast completely shreds this whole idea that Iran was developing a nuclear bomb as it is being presented and large backs up what the former military officer in the Fox News op ed I posted had to say.
Multiple sides to every story. You've heard one of them.

And can confirm his access. He runs a great food truck outside Los Alamos right off Diamond Drive. 5⭐, do recommend (y).
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
Multiple sides to every story. You've heard one of them.

And can confirm his access. He runs a great food truck outside Los Alamos right off Diamond Drive. 5⭐, do recommend (y).
I mean the guy interviewed in the podcast and the military officer laid it out in pretty easy to understand terms.

That along with our own intelligence agencies affirming that Iran was not developing nukes and with no evidence to counter any of that.

I’m even setting aside that this has been the go to playbook for gaslighting the public into supporting a war for as long as I have been alive.

Do they have lengua?
 
Last edited:

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,381
Reaction score
5,808
Uranium itself is not the nasty stuff. The reason it makes great fuel for fission is that U-235 has a half life of 700 million+ years. It only fissions if we want it to. The nastiness with nuclear power comes from the fission product daughters that have high activity. It's certainly not a good idea to blow up a Uranium stockpile open air, but it's not going to be a big environmental catastrophe, but more of a Non Proliferation concern of scattered enriched Uranium.
Nerd. If you drop a xenon or samarium reference, you're getting blocked.
 

Fbolt

I've been around
Messages
6,932
Reaction score
2,253
I won't argue against the gaslighting (I believe I understand that term) to support a war. I will say, a Mil officer and dudes on podcasts-and I've listened to many, are typically selling something and/or are influenced by their ego's. We are an open society (a tad to open IMO-although it's not like the gov lies :ROFLMAO:) and everyone wants to conduct foreign policy from their LR or kitchen tables. Just know you know something yet not everything. Self awareness is key IMHO.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
I won't argue against the gaslighting (I believe I understand that term) to support a war. I will say, a Mil officer and dudes on podcasts-and I've listened to many, are typically selling something and/or are influenced by their ego's. We are an open society (a tad to open IMO-although it's not like the gov lies :ROFLMAO:) and everyone wants to conduct foreign policy from their LR or kitchen tables. Just know you know something yet not everything. Self awareness is key IMHO.
It’s all good.

I’m just not a fan of people I know and or their kids being marched off to the Middle East (I know a bunch of people who were in Desert Storm, Afghanistan and Iraq) based on a bunch of horseshit.
 
Last edited:
Top