Salute!

From the IAEA, "For that, we must take a number of steps. First of all, we must return to the negotiating table and for that allow IAEA inspectors, the guardians, on our behalf, of the NPT, to go back to Iran’s nuclear sites and account for thefolks stockpiles of uranium, including, most importantly, the 400kg enriched to 60%."

For power plants, 10% is high. For medical purposes, 20% is enuf. So several highly respected folks in the nuclear bidness assert that refining that high means going for a weapon.

Gums sends...

Going for a weapon is one thing. Being about to produce one is quite another. The only thing I can see for certain is that Iran is now more convinced than ever that it needs a nuclear weapon and more determined than ever to get one. And, looking at previous posts upthread, it would seem that the IRGC now has complete control of Iran, which is not going to help matters at all.

Meanwhile, five cruise ships have transited the Strait (granted, without passengers).

And, according to this article, Iran is about to pass a domestic law giving itself the 'right' to total control over the Strait of Hormuz.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg4jnn131qo

And the useless, champagne sipping, UN will publish another strongly worded letter saying that there is a channel that is considered to be an International Waterway.

For a gun-type bomb, 60% isn't enough. 85% is required. And as enrichment gets harder the higher you go, 60% is a lot further from 85% than it sounds.

Of course you can use lower grades in an implosion type bomb; But they are far harder to build, and if you have the technical ability to build one, you have the ability to avoid the painful enrichment of uranium, and to go straight to plutonium.

Making nuclear bombs is hard. That's why the Manhattan Project wasn't wrapped up in a month at a cost of a few thousand bucks.

But anyone who really, really wants one, and who has the resources of a nation state available, will get there eventually.

The only way to stop Iran from ever having a nuke is to make it more desirable for them not to have one, than it is for them to have one. Via means such as the JCPOA.

Dropping bombs on them has the opposite effect.

erm...No.

The basic unit of capability of an enrichment facility is a Separative Work Unit, or SWU--pronounced the way it looks. I took the trouble to look up what fraction of the total SWU effort needed to go from natural Uranium concentration to 90% 60% was, and recall that only about 1% of the total SWU need was not yet met by the time they got to 60%.

There are problems of inventory and plumbing configuration, but in the basic physics they were very nearly there.

I've studied this stuff informally for over 50 years (took a course that long ago at MIT). In the national programs that have come to light, getting possession of adequate amounts of fisslle material was always the rate-limiting factor. Clever people can improved the design above the level I once heard a US designer of a couple of thermonuclear devices sneeringly refer to as "a high-school physics bomb", but if you are not after maximum yield or safety, it actually is not difficult to design and implement a configuration that will give appreciable nuclear yield.

The Manhattan project did not take very many days from the time they had a bomb's worth of fissile material to the time they fired three devices. General Groves was whipping every back in sight to get to first bomb as fast as possible. After it was all over, he observed that had they more quickly put fuller effort into the thermal diffiusion effort (the S-50 plant), they could have gotten to first bomb about two weeks earlier. He clearly was describing that as a missed important opportunity.

Actually, once the enrichment process has begun it gets easier to enrich as the process continues, as the precursor U-235 is at a higher concentration making separation easier; the percentage of U-235 is 0.72% in Uranium ore. For those interested, this site is an incredibly good technical resource and history for all things nuclear weapon related:

https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/

Edited to add: Sorry archae86, didn't see the post above! We agree. Also, the Uranium gun type bomb was not tested, as its detonation was assured, and if the Iranians do enrich Uranium to the required level construction of a gun type device is trivial.

Thank you both for the corrections. Clearly my understanding was in error.

Yeah, it's sort of counter intuitive; the more U-235 there is makes it easier to concentrate, as there is much more as percentage of source material. Sorry, poorly phrased, it's late!

Iran considers Israel to be as much of a threat to Iran, as Israel considers Iran to be its nemesis. There is justification for concern, but bouncing rubble in each camp does not alleviate the animosity. The problem with getting the fruitbats in change on both sides is that the consequences are lost in the rhetoric. As to a nuclear weapon with a gun design or implosion, those are both possible topology, as is moving to a fusion component, if there is a suitable supply of tritium and Li 6 floating about, probably some spare out of Uncle Vlad's shack of spares.

It would seem to be desirable to remove the presumed existential threat that both Israel and Iran feel from their shoulders, what is being done at present is increasing, not diminishing the threat. Iran and Iraq went at it for 9 years so the term "concede" doesn't seem to translate into Farsi or Arabic, and there is no evidence of Bibbi's guys considering concessions translates into Hebrew either. The last time there was a touch of concilliatory hearts, the radicals on both sides capped the leaders.

The SoH closure will go down in history as being a strategic own goal of memorable proportions, overshadowing all of the glitz and glamour of smart bombs being thrown about by idiot politicians. It has opened up the potential for the secondary closure of the straits, which will necessitate placating China in the next 8 weeks or so, and India, in order to not get some rather stern worded diplomatic communiques. There are options that could be applied to keep China and India on side for a period, but that would assume some adult supervision in the WH, and that seems to flow as freely as the SoH does.

This won on day 1 special excursion seems to be doing about as well as would be imagined looking at the brain trust that put it together.

Stocking up n popcorn.

CENTCOM video: ​​​​​​​

And here we go again....

This looks like a great success of the current adventure. Once such a law is passed it is very difficult to back track without loss of face, read ain't gonna happen. This looks to become a permanent damage to World Economy :-(

In a war, fabricated lies are always used by each side. If you think that only the USA are concocting lies, then you are staggeringly naive. Or perhaps you just do not like Trump, which is hardly a revelation.

Jeeze, what a mess all this turning out to be...

Iran wanting the 'bomb', getting/having the bomb, would mean that the US and the 'coalition of the willing', would not dare attack it.
NK rings a bell :E

If Iran had a working/deliverable bomb, would it really take Isreal out?
I've heard all sorts of press releases over decades and AFAIK, Iran has never actually quoted - on the lines of - 'we will blow Isreal up if we have a bomb'.

Surely these days, the world runs on trade. In the days of the 'cold war', it was look after oneself/people. But now the $$$ reigns high and there's lots of countries doing very well - including Iran.
Saddam WMD, Gaddafi-Assad, regime changes. Now Iran's WMD...?

So is wiping Isreal off the face of the map going to do Iran any real good, or is Iran going to be ultimate 'anti-west' pariah...?

I assume Portugal, due to the fact that Spain has washed its hands of this mad and reckless adventure!

Combat loss replacements.https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f3805186e2.png

I have to ask,
How many kilos or how big should be nuclear bomb to destroy city like Tel Aviv?
If Iran wants with such bomb attack, how big rocket or aircraft has to be in order to reach Israel from let say middle of Iran?
The same question if they want to flattened Houstom or Buenos Aires e.g.

I do believe that Iran could have such desire or wet dreams- but they are not at that logistical level even if they have technology to produce A bomb.. I also suspect tgat they are able to produce A bomb. They are not so well educated.
Hate can not substitute knowledge.

A dirty bomb smuggled in [in kit form] seems much more attainable.
Think film Fourth Protocol.

The weapon used on Hiroshima contained 64 kilograms of uranium, but less than a kilogram underwent nuclear fission.
Delivery is the problem to overcome.

Yesterday’s What is going on with shipping.
As Sal says…now that they have caught it what are they going to do with it.
Hit in the engine room ..no power and maybe no steering… they will need a big Tug or two.

I would have thought a couple of shells into a container on the bow whould have been equally as effective…however that could be very problematic if the contents were explosive or flammable.
Did they try the classic “Shot across the bow?”

Hitting a container on the bow wouldn’t have stopped a ship that knowingly was attempting to run a blockade. My belief was this was a test by the Iranian government to determine the resolve of the USN, whether the ship would be stopped or not.

Four rounds of 5" SAP into the engine room will have trashed the diesel engine. Surprised the AB pulled off so far (couple of miles) before letting loose.

Definitely a test of resolve.

As someone who has been involved in negotiation all my working life, many involving very high $$ value items such as complete power stations, radar systems and defense development programs, I see one huge flaw with the way the USA is conducting this presently.

A fundamental first principle of any negotiation is to look for the win-win. This is so both parties can exit any negotiations with their pride intact and can go back to the folks on their side f things with some perceived wins. If they have to go back with absolutely nothing to their people (whether that be their board of directors or population) then that will be seen as a loss and major loss of face.

At present, the USA stance from Trump / Vance / Rubio is to approach every negotiation with other nations (whether it's trade / tariffs / military) with a win-lose....so the USA must be seen to have comprehensively won every single time and the other party must be seen to have comprehensively lost, even utterly humiliated.

Sometimes when we were in a very strong position, I found it helped to even manufacture some "wins" for the other party that were largely insignificant to our side but allowed them to go back with a list of things that they had achieved to soften conceding some quite key points to us. Again, it's that win-win.

I fear peace is a very long way off with the current USA stance of bomb - threaten annihilation - declare total victory - bomb again - threaten annihilation again etc etc on a daily basis will never get a conclusion. If Iran is beaten and totally humiliated into submission, it will leave an incredibly resentful leadership and population in Iran who may well double down to re-arm and gain a WMD capability and in a few years we are back to square one. Germany after WW1 anyone?

I'm retired now but I shake my head in despair at how these negotiations are being conducted.....by complete amateurs it seems.

You are in for a nasty surprise. The Iranian people are extremely well educated, certainly more than the ones with eleven nuclear carriers.

You beat me to that comment. Yes, the Iranians are very well educated, particularly in Engineering and Scientific areas. They have a high proportion of their population with university degrees.

I would think a couple of shells in the bow would have proven to the Iranian government the USN’s resolve to use force if required to enforce its controversial blockade of the strait. From the distance they fired it would have been easy to hit the bridge or accommodations instead of the engine room.

It would be better to keep the ship in a navigational condition would it not?

“ Under UNCLOS (Part III, Articles 34–45), all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of transit passage through international straits, allowing continuous and expeditious navigation between high seas/exclusive economic zones. Transit passage cannot be suspended by bordering states.”

Of course Iran closed the strait first so we have the ongoing kindergarten playground “But Billy Started It!,” blubberfest.

No to worry the US has Vice President JD Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner at the helm of the negotiations…what could possibly go wrong?

I think that you may be falling for lazy stereotypes. The standard of science education at Iranian universities is pretty good by international standards, and very good in regional comparisons. I understand that during the early years of the Islamic revolution, there was quite a lot of ideological and religious intrusion into academic life, but much less over recent decades. I have had a few CVs from Iranian scientists recently for post-graduate level positions that I was offering and they stood up well to many of the European/ N American applicants. They were certainly able to produce a much higher standard of written English than you!

Media is reporting this particular ship is used in part to transport chemicals used in Iran’s missiles, so yes disabling it is understandable.

Which media? Pray tell. I am seeing nothing but the usual headline grabbing speculation.

As Sal stated the only way to search all the containers is to unload the ship and that necessitates access to a dock and container cranes. Plus who wants to allow a ship that may be carrying very dangerous cargo and could even be booby trapped to go “Bang” into their harbour?
Much easier to accomplish if the ship is drivable vs dragging the darn thing around at 4-6 knots with, at the moment, mythical tugs.

Media that since the start of the "excursion" has been mostly peddling sheer propaganda from the aggressor?

Chaps please, 'media' is the plural of 'medium'.

So 'media are' or 'medium is'.
Otherwise it sets the teeth on edge.

You mean Sal?

He also alluded to the fact there aren't many commercial ports in the area which would want to get involved in this mullarkey.

That's a very specific claim, presumably based on inside information, yes? So I'm guessing you're talking about Fox?

The ship is allegedly owned by a company controlled by the government of Iran and has been known in the past to be involved in the transport of chemicals used to fuel missiles. Divert attention away all you’d like, there are indicators this particular ship has a history. Unlike every cab, every airliner, or any other form of transportation, this ship tried to run a blockade.

You’re welcome to ask the WSJ why they reported it as such. Not sure why you’d guess it was Fox.

If I were Iran and wanted to test US resolve I would make damn sure to use a sanitized ship loaded with nothing but Toys, children's books, Rainbows, Unicorn fodder, Baby food, medicine and other benign Red Crescent / Cross equipment.
All the better to embarrass the US when they seize the ship, potentially Injure innocent seamen in the process, and then come up empty handed after an expensive military operation, salvage operation and search all under the glow of camera lights.

Maybe it’s clean, very well could be, send the ship that has a known history of shipping chemical precursors for missiles without anything of interest. I suspect your thinking is synched up with that of the Iranian IRGC’s, a misunderstanding of what triggers the stop. This isn’t about what’s suspected to be onboard but rather it was stopped because it was running a blockade. Had the USN wanted, they had thousands of miles and opportunities to stop and search the ship since the South China Sea, they didn’t. This isn’t a matter of searching and short of finding something that the ship would have been allowed to head to an Iranian port, this is a blockade of Iranian ports,