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

Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...
You really think alot of yourself don't you? I have been posting about this long before yesterday. But, I don't want to compromise your delusions
 
Teflon Don said:
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?
Click to expand...
^^ A tacit admission that until extremely recently, you thought 60 percent enrichment was weapons grade uranium, until I told you otherwise.

Neocons like you frantically tried to convince me 22 years ago that Iraq was building nuclear weapons.
 
FastLane said:
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.

Click to expand...
Indeed.
 
It’s telling how these far left sewer rats bend over backward to defend Iran, a terrorist nation-state that has killed more than a thousand Americans and spread terrorism throughout the ME.
 
Nordberg said:
60 percent is used in sub-fuel and medical imaging. Submarine fuel is only 5%. Iran has ZERO nuclear powered submarines. Medical imaging doesn't even use uranium at all.
Click to expand...
BULLSHIT!
Nordberg said:
They reached 60 years ago and then went no further.
Click to expand...
BULLSHIT!
Nordberg said:
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...
Why do you want Iran to have nuclear weapons???
 
Further, why were they building a large heavy water reactor that would produce plutonium as a biproduct of operation? Such reactors are uneconomical commercially and you don't need a large one for "research" purposes.
 
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...
"Sub-fuel" isn't 60% enriched but I can't tell you what the actual value is because that's classified. Yes, I know what it is, I had to learn both the S5G and S5W plants in addition to A1W. Medical imaging like x-rays doesn't use uranium at all. Those are usually more radioactive and have shorter half-lives since the radiation given off is what they're after, like cobalt-60 for example.
 
Cypress said:
^^ A tacit admission that until extremely recently, you thought 60 percent enrichment was weapons grade uranium, until I told you otherwise.

Neocons like you frantically tried to convince me 22 years ago that Iraq was building nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
you seem to love this word, but it is TDS

our allies share our concerns about Iran and weapons. not neocons. everyone
 
zymurgy said:
you seem to love this word, but it is TDS

our allies share our concerns about Iran and weapons. not neocons. everyone
Click to expand...
Neocons like you and Trump tried to trick me 22 years ago that Iraq was supposedly building nuclear weapons.

If you want to instigate a war in the Middle East you're going to have to come up with more compelling evidence of an imminent threat to the United States than your gut feeling.

Iran could have built a nuclear weapon 20 years ago. The fact that they haven't means they stopped actively trying to build one.
 
Earl said:
It’s telling how these far left sewer rats bend over backward to defend Iran, a terrorist nation-state that has killed more than a thousand Americans and spread terrorism throughout the ME.
Click to expand...
Pretty treasonist to defend a country that has murdered Americans.
 
zymurgy said:
that's like asking if we should nuke Germany before Hitler was born
Click to expand...
More like . Would you have killed Hitler before he started WWII if you knew what he planned? Blowing up aircraft carriers in WWII is a WHOLE LOT different than nuking Germany. Carriers are more offensive than defensive weapons in WWII.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top