Hacker News
points by myphpgothacked 3 days ago | 0 comments
If you ask international relations scholars or people in the state department, they actually support the prevention of nuclear proliferation.

The general population typically are doves because they can't see the consequences 10-50 years out.

My PhD bud, a Bernie supporter, thinks we should have put boots on the ground by now. I generally agree.

I lived through North Korea getting nuclear weapons in my lifetime. Before they were the end of a joke, today we have to care about the opinions of that backwater. (And I read international relations structural realists as much as I drink coffee... The job of the hegemon is to maintain the status quo.)

[–] delecti 3 days ago
Iran already wasn't working on nuclear weapons (a confident assessment by our intelligence community across the past 20+ years). The JCPOA then gave us the ability to verify that for ourselves. Then we (metaphorically) blew up that agreement, and (literally) blew up their leader who was firmly opposed to developing nuclear weapons, and the new one doesn't feel the same.
[–] bluGill 3 days ago
Iran has long said they're not working on nuclear weapons. However, they have built a large stockpile of particles of rich uranium, which is something completely useless to have unless you're planning on building nuclear weapons. This stockpile was built under the previous leader, who you are trying to claim was opposed to developing them, and yet he knew. who you are trying to claim was opposed to developing them and yet he knew. Iran didn't have nuclear weapons, however for years they were only a few weeks away from having them. They had all the hard parts in place to build one. There's a reason to think they had plenty of experts who could do it. So far as we know they never actually built one but they absolutely could and this was done under the previous leader.
[–] jcranmer 3 days ago
The general assessment on Iran has long been that they aim to become a nuclear threshold state (have the ability to make nuclear weapons quickly (~1y timeline or less) should they need to), but not actually acquire nuclear weapons for themselves.
[–] spiderice 3 days ago
Surely you can see how that isn't much of a distinction. And even that is something that the west clearly should not allow.
[–] bigyabai 3 days ago
> And even that is something that the west clearly should not allow.

...which is why we (used to) have the JCPOA. Attacking Iran will have no effect if they can mine uranium domestically and build centrifuges themselves.

[–] bigyabai 3 days ago
Iran has domestic uranium deposits. They design and build their own centrifuges, and had thousands of such centrifuges during the JCPOA. It's basically impossible to denuclearize them or prevent them from building a rudimentary reactor or bomb, and it has been that way for at least two decades.

Diplomacy was a proven path to prevent Iran from reaching for nuclear deterrence. The plan worked well for America and Iran, which is probably what motivated Likud to escalate the situation and force them both to pick sides.

[–] themaninthedark 3 days ago
Yes, democracy and trade are the proven paths for preventing conflicts. Just ask the Ukrainians how that is going for them, I am sure they are so glad that Germany was buying oil and gas from Russia.

>The controversial gas pipeline Nord Stream 2 (NS2) has become the symbol of Germany’s widely criticised energy and security policy, which sought to build political bridges through trade and at the same time supply companies with cheap fuels. However, it drove the country into a fatal dependence on Russian oil and gas. Years later, government documents from the 2010s and early 2020s reported by Süddeutsche Zeitung showed that former chancellor Angela Merkel sought to portray her government as neutral and lacking competence in regards to the "business project" Nord Stream 2 to the outside world and European partners, while supporting increased gas trade with Russia through several actions.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/gas-pipeline-nord...

[–] bigyabai 3 days ago
Conflict was not a preferable alternative for Ukraine, so if you're trying to relate this as a metaphor for America's posture then it's not a great example.
[–] throw0101c 3 days ago
> Iran has long said they're not working on nuclear weapons. However, they have built a large stockpile of particles of rich uranium, which is something completely useless to have unless you're planning on building nuclear weapons.

After the JCPOA the stockpile went to zero (esp. >5% enrichment):

* https://www.statista.com/chart/23528/irans-stockpile-of--low...

* https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/status-irans-nuclear-...

* https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2020/11/18/the-de...

One year after the US left JCPOA (during Trump 1.0) the stockpile started going up again.

[–] delecti 3 days ago
They said they weren't working on nukes, and our intelligence community released assessments which agreed.

The level of enrichment they've been doing is higher than they need for power generation but it also isn't nearly enough to make nukes. A more reasonable explanation (given the assessments they aren't working on nukes) is that they were being deliberately provocative.

> So far as we know they never actually built one but they absolutely could and this was done under the previous leader

Right, they could, and didn't. Why? It was only 7 years from the discovery of fission to a proof of concept in the form of the trinity test. Either you assume a level of incompetence entirely divorced from Iran's efficacy on the international stage, or you accept they weren't trying.

[–] yyyk 3 days ago
>It also isn't nearly enough to make nukes

Enrichment % is very misleading. Natural is about 0.7%. 3.5% is halfway to 90%. The distance from 60% to 90% is tiny.

That's because the distance is calculated using the quantity of raw material that needs to be filtered and not the enrichment percent, the more pure, the less material needed, hence smaller distance to 90%.

>Right, they could, and didn't. Why?

Some people worked hard to ensure the latter would be very inadvisable for Iran. Being so close isn't a stable equilibrium though.

[–] labcomputer 2 days ago
That's a common misconception. You can't make the calculation purely on the mass of raw material needed to get a X kg of Y% material.

Every enrichment process drops in efficiency as the enrichment increases, asymptotically approaching that process's enrichment ceiling.

That's why nobody uses thermal diffusion to enrich uranium: It's by far the easiest method (you can do it with 1800's technology), but the practical maximum enrichment fraction is too low for anything useful (other than providing feedstock to better enrichment processes).

That's also the reason a centrifuge enrichment plant uses warehouses full of cascaded centrifuges: The centripetal force inside the centrifuge is working against a diffusion gradient, so each stage only gives a small percentage decrease of the "derichment" fraction.

Once you pass 50%, you stop looking for U-235 needles in a haystack to keep and start looking for U-238 needles in a haystack to throw away.

[–] fmajid 3 days ago
Ah but the geniuses Trump and Netanyahu assassinated the Iranian leader who had issued a fatwa banning nukes as unislamic so now all bets are off.
[–] themaninthedark 3 days ago
I like that he had banned nukes in 2003 but for some reason, Iran covertly construction Fordow starting in 2006. I guess he was just not as Supreme of a leader as he thought he was, somehow all those people just decided to hollow out a mountain and install centrifuges there.
[–] bigyabai 3 days ago
Iran started domestic enrichment in the 1980s. It was not banned in any fatwa, nor the JCPOA.
[–] themaninthedark 2 days ago
Ok but how is that a rebuttal to anything I said?

Fatwa was put in place in 2003, Fordow construction was started 2006.

In the words of Obama in 2009: “The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program,” then US President Barack Obama said in 2009

So who do I believe; a Supreme Leader who says they will not build nuclear weapons or my lying eyes...

Or perhaps you are saying that the Supreme Leader didn't have control over his country and some rebel faction was able to build that with out his knowledge?

[–] themaninthedark 3 days ago
The intelligence assessment was very careful about what it said.

>A U.S. intelligence assessment says Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons at the moment but has ramped up activities that could help it develop them. https://apnews.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-intelligence-b506...

So they were not actively building a nuke, only getting all the pieces together to build one ready....

Prior to the deal: >Iran initially possessed centrifuges sufficient for one nuclear weapon, but not for nuclear power. https://web.archive.org/web/20190709050018/https://www.polit...

After the deal was broken by Trump and Biden was trying to restart it.... >2023 : An IAEA report on the Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant found that two cascades of IR-6 centrifuges were configured in a way "substantially different" from what Iran had previously declared. Iran claimed the difference was due to a human error.

>On 4 March(2023), Grossi met with Raisi and other top Iranian officials. Earlier, IAEA had detected uranium particles enriched up to 83.7% at Fordow. In the meantime, Iran gave assurances that it would reinstall monitoring equipment at sensitive locations.

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

[–] yyyk 3 days ago
The JCPOA enrichment limits would have started to expire this year, and soon Iran could have completely legally enriched as much as it wanted - while getting hundreds of billions via JCPOA sanctions removal. Given what it took to get Iran to this state under sanctions, it would have been impossible to force it to renew the limits or give up anything on nukes. We'd have ended up with Iranian control of Hormuz at the very least, likely of Gulf as well.

Perhaps that's an acceptable cost of avoiding higher gas prices right now - except Iran would have had the capacity to decide these at will. It's a fair choice, but best to be aware of the consequences.

[–] AngryData 3 days ago
You don't think Iran would have renegotiated to extend it further? If not, why would they even bother top follow the agreement in the first place? The legality of what they do has never been a consideration, they are a sovereign nation.
[–] yyyk 3 days ago
>You don't think Iran would have renegotiated to extend it further?

Why would Iran want to do it? Iran could absolutely control Hormuz* and get a nuke at will** under the deal. At that point it can avoid sanctions by threatening the Gulf. Or demand other concessions for allowing the Gulf to operate. That's what it tries to do now, but from a much weaker position compared to the deal timeline.

* Take the real life prewar Iranian missile and drone strength, assume Iran had an extra couple of hundreds of billions to pour into it, no import limits by the UN, a less restive populace, etc.

** Breakout timeline being a week at most at end of expiry timeline. Probably the only way to keep the Gulf independent at that scenario would have been nuclear deterrence.

>If not, why would they even bother to follow the agreement in the first place?

Because Iran wasn't anywhere strong enough at the time to risk a war, but the existence of the agreement and general developments would have predictably changed the power balance in its favor.

>The legality of what they do has never been a consideration

Well, if you decide something is legal, it's much tougher to change one's mind and stop it later.

[–] hardbass 3 days ago
Why didn't they blockade the hormuz before then?
[–] yyyk 2 days ago
They did in the late 80s and were crushed. Also talk of doing it was rife before this war.
[–] hardbass 2 days ago
But they couldn't before the war. The stupid israeli war blocked the strait which was operating fine before the Israeli invasion. So clearly Israeli invasion is to blame for the blockade.
[–] varnaud 3 days ago
The world would be more safe if Iran had nuclear weapons (less American/Israeli/Saudi interventions in the middle east). They should have smuggled nukes from the collapsed soviet Russia or do whatever was necessary to produce nukes.

Nukes, (or thousands of artillery pointed at densely populated areas allied with a country with nukes) are the surest way maintain sovereignty in the mad world we live in.

[–] fmajid 3 days ago
The Saudis would then get nukes from Pakistan. The thought of MBS or a Wahhabism fanatic successor getting his hands on nukes is absolutely terrifying, far more than the Iranians or even Kim Jong Un.
[–] protocolture 3 days ago
>They should have smuggled nukes from the collapsed soviet Russia or do whatever was necessary to produce nukes.

The plan in Iran was always self sufficiency.

[–] jcranmer 3 days ago
I'm not really sold on the idea that nuclear weapons are a salve against conflict. The only real examples are North Korea not getting invaded and maybe tamping down some of the India-Pakistan conflicts (note that India and Pakistan have had armed conflict with each other since both acquired nuclear weapons!). On the contrary, we can see times where nuclear weapons seem to have emboldened leaders--Putin has definitely played the "you can't retaliate against my aggression, I'll nuke you" card, and the Cuban missile crisis had both the American and Soviet militaries stridently arguing for a nuclear first strike because going second would be so calamitous (it was avoided largely because both Kennedy and Khrushchev were reticent to do so).

One of the striking features of the last decade or so of global politics is the willingness of middle powers to arm and fuel regional conflicts, so I think it entirely plausible that a world where middle powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran gain nuclear weapons is one where, say, the Sudanese Civil War involves nukes.

[–] fyredge 3 days ago
> My PhD bud, a Bernie supporter, thinks we should have put boots on the ground by now. I generally agree.

I suspect that this belief has the same level of thought put into it as the "general populace". The crux of the issue is not Iran's nuclear proliferation, it's the hegemon's unreliability.

The US had the JCPOA, had allies for deterrence, and unilaterally decided to discard them in the name of inflation. One might argue that the electorate has decided that the US should no longer be a hegemon, and yet the administration still impose it's will on others.

There was a time when I believed that Iran was not a rational actor. That is not the case now. I can only hope that there are enough checks and balances to prevent other actors from acting too irrationally.