"Iran does not need to consolidate its stockpile of enriched uranium into a series of nuclear weapons to present a strategic threat to the United States or to any other nation. Just the enriched material itself can be utilized to produce “radiological weapons”—so-called “dirty bombs”.
Any radioactive material -- e.g. the waste from a civilian reactor -- can be used to produce so-called dirty bombs. I can't see using enriched uranium for that purpose; it's too valuable when ordinary reactor waste will work just as well, or probably even better.
U235 has a half-life of ~700 million years, meaning it's not all that radioactive, whereas reactor waste contains fission products with short half-lives that are much more radioactive.
I hope the right people in Washington understand this nuance of rights to take military action, all the No Kings and No War protests and certain Democrats surely don't.
I don't know how serious a threat this is, but I thought I saw a headline about Putin or others supplying Iran with nuclear weapons. This would be devastating if a prolonged MidEast war zone drew in Russia and China....I found this article that states the damage to nuclear facilities was minor and "Mr Medvedev claimed that "a number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads." He did not identify which nations he was referring to."
There are nine countries known to possess nuclear weapons:
* Russia
* the United States
* China
* France
* the United Kingdom
* Pakistan
* India
* Israel
* North Korea.
Only the last four are outside the auspices of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which prohibits nuclear weapons transfers of the sort Medvedev is suggesting.
It's safe to say that Israel won't be donating any nukes. It's unlikely that Pakistan and India are going to want to part with their nuclear arsenals either.
North Korea would probably sell Iran a warhead or two.
China might, although China is too dependent on Middle East oil. China perhaps more than any other nation needs the Middle East to be broadly peaceful.
Russia has too many of its own problems with Islamic terrorism to want to hand nuclear warheads over to a major sponsor of Islamic terror.
As for whether the damage is "minor", the operative question is whether Fordow can still produce highly enriched uranium. If the answer is "no", then the damage is not minor.
Iran can rebuild Fordow and may be tempted to try. But they are likely going to have to withdraw from the NPT to do so, and if they do they are essentially signalling to the world that their goal has been nuclear weapons all along.
Thank you, that helps a lot, as well as the article. I wish my family would read your articles but they're all in a frenzy and irrational as they refuse to read or listen to any opinion outside their own mind and their "echo-chamber", it's really sad. Discussions or asking critical questions have not been possible since 2020. It must be exhausting to be so angry for so long, truly losing the ability to think rationally or consider evidence or even an idea that is different, impossible to mature and grow without learning to listen and learn and understand and agree to disagree without relational fractures.
China helped Iran build their Uranium processing capabilities. To my mind it's not an implausible possibility that China might see some advantage in helping Iran obtain a nuclear device by way of taking the weapons grade Uranium Iran's already produced (just where is that material anyway?) then using it to fabricate weapons that then could be traded for Iranian oil, NPT be damned.
Excellent job of assessing the situation, while not going off in any speculative direction. Peter, you are just the best at this, and thank you for answering all of my questions in advance!
Reading history, I’ve often thought that the hardest part of being a leader of a country is that you have to place bets on unknowns. Will taking Action X result in a better or worse outcome than doing nothing, or of taking a different action? It’s a calculated bet, and only time shows if you made the right call. Trump is either going to get his face carved into Mount Rushmore (as he has indicated he’d like), or he is going to be vilified by even many of his staunch supporters. Meanwhile, millions of lives could hang in the balance. Hey, all you college kids majoring in gender studies, would you like to experience the joys of boot camp? Adventure awaits, kids!
Your talent is a joy to your readers, Peter - keep it coming!
"Iran does not need to consolidate its stockpile of enriched uranium into a series of nuclear weapons to present a strategic threat to the United States or to any other nation. Just the enriched material itself can be utilized to produce “radiological weapons”—so-called “dirty bombs”.
Any radioactive material -- e.g. the waste from a civilian reactor -- can be used to produce so-called dirty bombs. I can't see using enriched uranium for that purpose; it's too valuable when ordinary reactor waste will work just as well, or probably even better.
U235 has a half-life of ~700 million years, meaning it's not all that radioactive, whereas reactor waste contains fission products with short half-lives that are much more radioactive.
I hope the right people in Washington understand this nuance of rights to take military action, all the No Kings and No War protests and certain Democrats surely don't.
I don't know how serious a threat this is, but I thought I saw a headline about Putin or others supplying Iran with nuclear weapons. This would be devastating if a prolonged MidEast war zone drew in Russia and China....I found this article that states the damage to nuclear facilities was minor and "Mr Medvedev claimed that "a number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads." He did not identify which nations he was referring to."
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/many-nations-ready-to-supply-iran-with-their-nuclear-warheads-top-putin-aide-8731477#google_vignette
May God protect and have mercy on us and on the Middle East, and bring this to an end quickly.
There are nine countries known to possess nuclear weapons:
* Russia
* the United States
* China
* France
* the United Kingdom
* Pakistan
* India
* Israel
* North Korea.
Only the last four are outside the auspices of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which prohibits nuclear weapons transfers of the sort Medvedev is suggesting.
It's safe to say that Israel won't be donating any nukes. It's unlikely that Pakistan and India are going to want to part with their nuclear arsenals either.
North Korea would probably sell Iran a warhead or two.
China might, although China is too dependent on Middle East oil. China perhaps more than any other nation needs the Middle East to be broadly peaceful.
Russia has too many of its own problems with Islamic terrorism to want to hand nuclear warheads over to a major sponsor of Islamic terror.
As for whether the damage is "minor", the operative question is whether Fordow can still produce highly enriched uranium. If the answer is "no", then the damage is not minor.
Iran can rebuild Fordow and may be tempted to try. But they are likely going to have to withdraw from the NPT to do so, and if they do they are essentially signalling to the world that their goal has been nuclear weapons all along.
Thank you, that helps a lot, as well as the article. I wish my family would read your articles but they're all in a frenzy and irrational as they refuse to read or listen to any opinion outside their own mind and their "echo-chamber", it's really sad. Discussions or asking critical questions have not been possible since 2020. It must be exhausting to be so angry for so long, truly losing the ability to think rationally or consider evidence or even an idea that is different, impossible to mature and grow without learning to listen and learn and understand and agree to disagree without relational fractures.
I'm glad you find my work useful.
This is one story where pretty much all the narratives are counterproductive.
The operative phrasing right now is "we don't know." Every "expert" that claims to know what all this means is definitionally full of horse hockey.
General Flynn, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson....all of them need to reel in their egos and admit they don't know every damn thing.
China helped Iran build their Uranium processing capabilities. To my mind it's not an implausible possibility that China might see some advantage in helping Iran obtain a nuclear device by way of taking the weapons grade Uranium Iran's already produced (just where is that material anyway?) then using it to fabricate weapons that then could be traded for Iranian oil, NPT be damned.
It's not an impossibility, but if they got caught doing that the geopolitical fallout would be devastating for China.
If there's one thing that has broad consensus among the capitals of the world it is that nuclear weapons are something of a problem.
Nukes are why the world was on edge when Pakistan and India rekindled their decades old conflict.
Nukes have been hanging over the war in Ukraine.
Iran needs China's hard currency. Why get cute with the NPT when China already has something Iran desperately needs?
Excellent job of assessing the situation, while not going off in any speculative direction. Peter, you are just the best at this, and thank you for answering all of my questions in advance!
Reading history, I’ve often thought that the hardest part of being a leader of a country is that you have to place bets on unknowns. Will taking Action X result in a better or worse outcome than doing nothing, or of taking a different action? It’s a calculated bet, and only time shows if you made the right call. Trump is either going to get his face carved into Mount Rushmore (as he has indicated he’d like), or he is going to be vilified by even many of his staunch supporters. Meanwhile, millions of lives could hang in the balance. Hey, all you college kids majoring in gender studies, would you like to experience the joys of boot camp? Adventure awaits, kids!
Your talent is a joy to your readers, Peter - keep it coming!
This helps a lot!