Is Iran about to go nuclear?

[Hack-Hook]

Developing a missile with a nuclear capability is a completely different ballgame.Iran can do it, but its gonna take a lot of time.

if your missile can deliver 2t warhead , its given it can deliver nuclear warhead of considerable size

 

[Sinnerman108]

Is Iran about to go nuclear?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1618662447484915713

Ummm,
If someone has highly enriched uranium, then they will build a uranium device,
that device is big, and needs a massive missile ( comparatively speaking ) to hit the target;
or one could mount that on an airplane, which can easily be intercepted by Iran's neighbors.

The real deal is to have a miniaturized device, and you need Plutonium to do that.

That said, Plutonium is a byproduct of nuclear fission; and it is not easy to machine
plutonium.

Actually it is very difficult to machine plutonium.

 

[Abid123]

Iran has been going "nuclear" for the past 15 years... I actually hope Iran tests a nuclear bomb and aims ICBM at US mainland.

 

[villageidiot]

Iran has been going "nuclear" for the past 15 years... I actually hope Iran tests a nuclear bomb and aims ICBM at US mainland.

Iran should move to Mars or Latin America at the very least, before they get any such ideas. Our air pollution is already the worst in the world.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Ummm,
If someone has highly enriched uranium, then they will build a uranium device,
that device is big, and needs a massive missile ( comparatively speaking ) to hit the target;
or one could mount that on an airplane, which can easily be intercepted by Iran's neighbors.

The real deal is to have a miniaturized device, and you need Plutonium to do that.

That said, Plutonium is a byproduct of nuclear fission; and it is not easy to machine
plutonium.

Actually it is very difficult to machine plutonium.

depend on what you want , if 20-25 kt is enough we already saw w9, w19, w23, w33 warhead
and for military target that is enough but if you want flatten all of a city you need something stronger.

 

[Abid123]

depend on what you want , if 20-25 kt is enough we already saw w9, w19, w23, w33 warhead
and for military target that is enough but if you want flatten all of a city you need something stronger.

20-25 kt is overkill for a tactical nuke. The Hiroshima bomb which flattened a entire city was 15 kt. The maximum yield for a nuke designed to destroy military targets should be 10kt. Ideally 5kt.

 

[Hack-Hook]

20-25 kt is overkill for a tactical nuke. The Hiroshima bomb which flattened a entire city was 15 kt. The maximum yield for a nuke designed to destroy military targets should be 10kt. Ideally 5kt.

Hiroshima was a wooden city , that bomb only can destroy a district of a modern city
also lowering the yield won't reduce the nuclear material needed for the bomb that much

 

[aryobarzan]

For all those that make comment in this topic here are some facts:

Pakistan nuclear project Started: 1972 (Bhutto era)
Pakistan went nuclear capable :1984 (12 year after start....fast pace development due to India threat)
Pakistan detonated 5 nuclear devices:1998 (14 years after going nuclear capable or 26 years after start)

Conclusion: It took Pakistan 26 year from start to detonation using 1980's technology of the time .

Iran has had 53 years...What do you think Iran has .I leave it to your own imagination..but if you need a hint Iran went "Nuclear capable in 2003 ,,20 years ago)
(see Iran nuclear Technology thread in this forum)

 

[Sinnerman108]

depend on what you want , if 20-25 kt is enough we already saw w9, w19, w23, w33 warhead
and for military target that is enough but if you want flatten all of a city you need something stronger.

That was not the point,
Having a warhead is one thing,
delivering it on target is another problem and almost as big as making the bomb.

 

[Hack-Hook]

That was not the point,
Having a warhead is one thing,
delivering it on target is another problem and almost as big as making the bomb.

those warhead designed to fired by cannon , they certainly can be put inside a missile and they were all gun type HEU tupe of nukes

 

[SalarHaqq]

having a few warheads doesn't make you a nuclear power, unless you have them in numbers

There may be one exception to the rule, and that is if your main adversary is the size of Isra"el".

And if you establish nuclear deterrence against the zionist regime you've automatically established it against the USA and NATO as well, given the Isra"el"-firster nature of western establishments.

 

[TheSolution]

depend on what you want , if 20-25 kt is enough we already saw w9, w19, w23, w33 warhead
and for military target that is enough but if you want flatten all of a city you need something stronger.

What do you have in size for a city like say Washington?

 

[Muhammed45]

What do you have in size for a city like say Washington?

NUKE are Mostly for deterrence, not practical options.

If you have 100 of them then you have the required deterrence. No need to think about how to delete a country as big as USA.

 

[Hack-Hook]

What do you have in size for a city like say Washington?

why we want to destroy a city ?

 

[Oldman1]

Hiroshima was a wooden city , that bomb only can destroy a district of a modern city
also lowering the yield won't reduce the nuclear material needed for the bomb that much

Because of mostly wooden cities, firebombing was more destructive than the atomic bombs.