6 ms·

Good Luck! At this point I would hope they would get innovative and try different options for their electricity or defense needs. Why are they getting so stuck

Good Luck! At this point I would hope they would get innovative and try different options for their electricity or defense needs. Why are they getting so stuck on enriching uranium ? Why not try something else ?

titzer 5y ago
60% U-235 is far more than what is necessary for commercial power generation, and yet less than what it is necessary for a nuclear weapon (> 90%). This is a threat to make a bomb without actually crossing the line to actually making a bomb.
- devoutsalsa 5y ago
  It seems that commercial reactors use 3% to 5% enriched Uranium. [1] Is there any practical reason to enrich Uranium to 60%? For example, is it cheaper to enrich the Uranium to 60%, and then use that as fuel for ~12 commercial reactors by diluting it down to ~5%? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Low_enriched_uranium_(LEU) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Low_enriched_...
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    This appears to be spending a lot of effort to concentrate uranium into a tidy, enriched package in order to provoke Israel into transforming that package into a significantly less concentrated and much less usable form.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    It will allow it to work longer before a refuelling is needed. Higher reactivity reserve before fuel poisoning sets in.
    - supertrope 5y ago
      Which describes radioisotope thermoelectric generators in spacecraft, prototype small sealed reactors, and nuclear submarines. The last is obviously military use.
  - AdamJacobMuller 5y ago
    > Is there any practical reason to enrich Uranium to 60%? Yes. Going from 2% -> 90% first requires you to go from 2% -> 60% both in the mathematical sense (2->60->90) and in the process sense (it's a lot less work to from 60% -> 90% than it is from 2% -> 90%) and also in the sense that you to first develop the technology to enrich uranium to various levels, then develop the technology to enrich it to that level at scale, enriching to 2% isn't that hard, enriching to 60% is hard, enriching to 90% is harder but the leap from 2->60 is a lot harder than the leap from 60->90. In short, no, I don't think there is any practical reason to enrich to 60% unless your intention is to either enrich to weapons grade or as a threat to do so.
  - Symmetry 5y ago
    Well, using more highly enriched uranium means you can make reactors lighter and more compact which is very important if you want to send them to outer space. I don't think Iran has any immediate interest in that but it's very much on NASA's radar.
  - stunt 5y ago
    There are some medical and research use cases, but I have no idea if Iran is advance enough to need that.
HHC-Hunter 5y ago
>Why are they getting so stuck on enriching uranium ? Why not try something else ? Very likely because they're under extreme trade embargo? I'll never understand why the CIA didn't just come out and say they did this attack, like they did the last one with Stuxnet. Honestly.
- pm90 5y ago
  Because it blows the cover of diplomacy. Sovereign nations not at war aren’t supposed to conduct hostile ops against each other. Diplomacy and international relations are sort of their own universe with their protocols, traditions etc. Admitting to the attack would mean that the US appears as the blatant aggressor, and may have to make concessions. Plausible deniability is often safe and has no consequences.
  - macspoofing 5y ago
    >Sovereign nations not at war aren’t supposed to conduct hostile ops against each other. Says who? When was that ever true in the history of civilization? The only peace humanity every knew was within the border of some empire. Otherwise it was constant war.
    - wahern 5y ago
      Says international law, including the United Nations charter (reciting the Westphalian doctrine), which every member state signs onto. Of course, there are large grey areas in international relations, and nobody can reasonably expect perfect compliance, anyhow. But beyond any specific practical, tactical, or strategic reasons for maintaining plausible deniability, refusing to openly admit to a violation still reflects a degree of obeyance to the law. When large nations start openly flouting norms w/ a giant "F-U", that's when you know the international order and world peace is in trouble. Plausible deniability of military ops is the nation-state equivalent of the polite fiction in cultural anthropology--an important, useful tool providing resilience to the normative system.
      - 5y ago
anigbrowl 5y ago
Can't really think of anything that has the same sort of deterrent factor as a nuke.

titzer 5y ago

60% U-235 is far more than what is necessary for commercial power generation, and yet less than what it is necessary for a nuclear weapon (> 90%). This is a threat to make a bomb without actually crossing the line to actually making a bomb.

devoutsalsa 5y ago
It seems that commercial reactors use 3% to 5% enriched Uranium. [1] Is there any practical reason to enrich Uranium to 60%? For example, is it cheaper to enrich the Uranium to 60%, and then use that as fuel for ~12 commercial reactors by diluting it down to ~5%? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Low_enriched_uranium_(LEU) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Low_enriched_...
- sokoloff 5y ago
  This appears to be spending a lot of effort to concentrate uranium into a tidy, enriched package in order to provoke Israel into transforming that package into a significantly less concentrated and much less usable form.
- baybal2 5y ago
  It will allow it to work longer before a refuelling is needed. Higher reactivity reserve before fuel poisoning sets in.
  - supertrope 5y ago
    Which describes radioisotope thermoelectric generators in spacecraft, prototype small sealed reactors, and nuclear submarines. The last is obviously military use.
- AdamJacobMuller 5y ago
  > Is there any practical reason to enrich Uranium to 60%? Yes. Going from 2% -> 90% first requires you to go from 2% -> 60% both in the mathematical sense (2->60->90) and in the process sense (it's a lot less work to from 60% -> 90% than it is from 2% -> 90%) and also in the sense that you to first develop the technology to enrich uranium to various levels, then develop the technology to enrich it to that level at scale, enriching to 2% isn't that hard, enriching to 60% is hard, enriching to 90% is harder but the leap from 2->60 is a lot harder than the leap from 60->90. In short, no, I don't think there is any practical reason to enrich to 60% unless your intention is to either enrich to weapons grade or as a threat to do so.
- Symmetry 5y ago
  Well, using more highly enriched uranium means you can make reactors lighter and more compact which is very important if you want to send them to outer space. I don't think Iran has any immediate interest in that but it's very much on NASA's radar.
- stunt 5y ago
  There are some medical and research use cases, but I have no idea if Iran is advance enough to need that.

HHC-Hunter 5y ago

>Why are they getting so stuck on enriching uranium ? Why not try something else ? Very likely because they're under extreme trade embargo? I'll never understand why the CIA didn't just come out and say they did this attack, like they did the last one with Stuxnet. Honestly.

pm90 5y ago
Because it blows the cover of diplomacy. Sovereign nations not at war aren’t supposed to conduct hostile ops against each other. Diplomacy and international relations are sort of their own universe with their protocols, traditions etc. Admitting to the attack would mean that the US appears as the blatant aggressor, and may have to make concessions. Plausible deniability is often safe and has no consequences.
- macspoofing 5y ago
  >Sovereign nations not at war aren’t supposed to conduct hostile ops against each other. Says who? When was that ever true in the history of civilization? The only peace humanity every knew was within the border of some empire. Otherwise it was constant war.
  - wahern 5y ago
    Says international law, including the United Nations charter (reciting the Westphalian doctrine), which every member state signs onto. Of course, there are large grey areas in international relations, and nobody can reasonably expect perfect compliance, anyhow. But beyond any specific practical, tactical, or strategic reasons for maintaining plausible deniability, refusing to openly admit to a violation still reflects a degree of obeyance to the law. When large nations start openly flouting norms w/ a giant "F-U", that's when you know the international order and world peace is in trouble. Plausible deniability of military ops is the nation-state equivalent of the polite fiction in cultural anthropology--an important, useful tool providing resilience to the normative system.
    - 5y ago

anigbrowl 5y ago

Can't really think of anything that has the same sort of deterrent factor as a nuke.