The one question on Iran no leftist can answer. Why 60%

Teflon Don

Teflon Don

I'm back baby
Not one leftist on this board can answer one simple question. Why was Iran enriching uranium to 60%? They squawk and squawk that they weren't at the magical 90% enrichment phase, but they can not or will not explain why they were even at 60%

It is not even disputed that they were at 60%. The UN confirmed it.

It is also irrefutable that if one is using uranium for peaceful energy production purposes one does not need to enrich uranium past 5%. I have read some places maybe up to 20% (but I am no expert)

I have yet to come across any source that can justify enriching uranium to 60% for peaceful reasons. The only reason to enrich to 60% is because it is that much easier to enrich it to 90%.

So until a board leftist can answer this one question reasonably, I will not even take them seriously on this issue. Case closed.
 
Teflon Don said:
Not one leftist on this board can answer one simple question. Why was Iran enriching uranium to 60%? They squawk and squawk that they weren't at the magical 90% enrichment phase, but they can not or will not explain why they were even at 60%

It is not even disputed that they were at 60%. The UN confirmed it.

It is also irrefutable that if one is using uranium for peaceful energy production purposes one does not need to enrich uranium past 5%. I have read some places maybe up to 20% (but I am no expert)

I have yet to come across any source that can justify enriching uranium to 60% for peaceful reasons. The only reason to enrich to 60% is because it is that much easier to enrich it to 90%.

So until a board leftist can answer this one question reasonably, I will not even take them seriously on this issue. Case closed.
Click to expand...
^^ A tacit admission you didn't know until I told you 18 hours ago that U-235 enriched to 60 percent is not weapons-grade uranium.

The real question is why didn't FOX and TrumpCo. tell you that, and why did you blindy accept that it was weapons-grade uranium?
 
Teflon Don said:
Not one leftist on this board can answer one simple question. Why was Iran enriching uranium to 60%? They squawk and squawk that they weren't at the magical 90% enrichment phase, but they can not or will not explain why they were even at 60%

It is not even disputed that they were at 60%. The UN confirmed it.

It is also irrefutable that if one is using uranium for peaceful energy production purposes one does not need to enrich uranium past 5%. I have read some places maybe up to 20% (but I am no expert)

I have yet to come across any source that can justify enriching uranium to 60% for peaceful reasons. The only reason to enrich to 60% is because it is that much easier to enrich it to 90%.

So until a board leftist can answer this one question reasonably, I will not even take them seriously on this issue. Case closed.
Click to expand...
They are trying to make nuclear weapons.
 
Cypress said:
^^ A tacit admission you didn't know until I told you 18 hours ago that U-235 enriched to 60 percent is not weapons-grade uranium.

The real question is why didn't FOX and TrumpCo. tell you that, and why did you blindy accept that it was weapons-grade uranium?
Click to expand...
So answer the question why did Iran have over 400 kilos of 60% enriched U-235 when only 3-5% is needed for power generation. I don't ever remember Fox saying 60% was weapons grade U 235 do you have a link?


Enriching uranium from 60% to 90% U-235, while technically feasible, is a relatively quick process compared to enriching from natural uranium to reactor-grade levels (around 3-5%). The exact time depends on the number and type of centrifuges used. Based on the capabilities of Iran's centrifuges, it's estimated that it could take a month or two to enrich enough uranium for a single nuclear weapon, starting from 60%.



As of September 2022, Iran had a total of 9,892 centrifuges installed at its enrichment facilities. This includes 2,782 advanced centrifuges of various types and 7,110 IR-1 centrifuges. The advanced centrifuges are primarily IR-2m, IR-4, and IR-6 models. These centrifuges are located at the Natanz and Fordow enrichment facilities.

 
FastLane said:
Enriching uranium from 60% to 90% U-235, while technically feasible, is a relatively quick process compared to enriching from natural uranium to reactor-grade levels (around 3-5%). The exact time depends on the number and type of centrifuges used. Based on the capabilities of Iran's centrifuges, it's estimated that it could take a month or two to enrich enough uranium for a single nuclear weapon, starting from 60%.



As of September 2022, Iran had a total of 9,892 centrifuges installed at its enrichment facilities. This includes 2,782 advanced centrifuges of various types and 7,110 IR-1 centrifuges. The advanced centrifuges are primarily IR-2m, IR-4, and IR-6 models. These centrifuges are located at the Natanz and Fordow enrichment facilities.

Click to expand...
Looks like my revelations about weapons grade U-235 yesterday incited a sudden flurry of frantic Google research by hapless MAGA morons.

Neocons like you and Teflon Don frantically tried to convince me 22 years ago that Iraq was supposedly building nuclear weapons.
 
TOP said:
If that's what you believe then you keep a watch out and let me know when they Get back in business... It's not like they're short on staff or facilities....or supplies ..or anything...;)
Click to expand...
Do you believe they are giving up?
 
Teflon Don said:
Not one leftist on this board can answer one simple question. Why was Iran enriching uranium to 60%? They squawk and squawk that they weren't at the magical 90% enrichment phase, but they can not or will not explain why they were even at 60%

It is not even disputed that they were at 60%. The UN confirmed it.

It is also irrefutable that if one is using uranium for peaceful energy production purposes one does not need to enrich uranium past 5%. I have read some places maybe up to 20% (but I am no expert)

I have yet to come across any source that can justify enriching uranium to 60% for peaceful reasons. The only reason to enrich to 60% is because it is that much easier to enrich it to 90%.

So until a board leftist can answer this one question reasonably, I will not even take them seriously on this issue. Case closed.
Click to expand...
60 percent is used in sub-fuel and medical imaging. They reached 60 years ago and then went no further. That should have told you something. They have stated often they are not after a nuke. You believe they want a nuke. Then why didn't they get one? Pakistan and Afghanistan have them. It is not difficult to get one if you want one. If nuke level is a small step from 60, then they could have done that years ago.
 
Nordberg said:
60 percent is used in sub-fuel and medical imaging. They reached 60 years ago and then went no further. That should have told you something. They have stated often they are not after a nuke. You believe they want a nuke. Then why didn't they get one? Pakistan and Afghanistan have them. It is not difficult to get one if you want one. If nuke level is a small step from 60, then they could have done that years ago.
Click to expand...

They only need 20% u235 in the production of technetium

Concerns regarding nuclear proliferation have led to a shift towards low-enriched uranium (LEU) targets, with less than 20% U-235 content.
 
Cypress said:
^^ A tacit admission you didn't know until I told you 18 hours ago that U-235 enriched to 60 percent is not weapons-grade uranium.

The real question is why didn't FOX and TrumpCo. tell you that, and why did you blindy accept that it was weapons-grade uranium?
Click to expand...
You lie, I have been posting about that long before 18 hours ago. Just because you aren't paying attention doesn't mean you can make false allegations.

If I find a post of me talking about 60% uranium prior to 18 hours ago will you leave the board for good?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top