this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
41 points (93.6% liked)

World News

34956 readers
466 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Iran can likely build several atomic bombs with its current stockpiles of enriched uranium, the head of the United Nations’ nuclear agency said Thursday.

“They have enough material for several nuclear warheads,” the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Mariano Grossi, told Bloomberg News Thursday during an interview in Davos, Switzerland.

Iran appears to be storing the enriched uranium, not making it into warheads, Grossi said, while adding that the stockpiling was “not banal.”

Iran is speeding up its uranium enrichment process, and its domestic nuclear industry is now fully independent, even as the country continues to stymie international efforts to monitor its nuclear program.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Honestly if you don't have a whole fucking bunch of nuclear weapons you might as well have no nuclear weapons. "Several" isn't going to cut it and they're probably smart enough to know that.
The first county to use a nuke is going to bring hellfire on themselves from the rest of the world pretty much immediately so that's a game you don't want to play unless you pose an actual threat.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago

A few nuclear weapons are actually an extremely powerful deterrent. War isn't just about getting your k/d ratio up higher than the enemy - it's about the capacity to inflict more damage than your enemy is willing to bear. How many countries, do you think, are willing to risk one nuke on their territory for any matter less dire than their direct and immediate survival as a nation-state?

[–] Tujio@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Kinda? That is the logic that the cold war superpowers employed, but it isn't necessarily true. Having one nuclear-armed ICBM or cruise missile within range of a US city would be one hell of a deterrent.

China at least partly holds to this. Their logic is that nuclear security does not necessitate nuclear parity. So while the US and USSR made thousands of warheads and delivery systems, China maintained an arsenal of roughly 80-100 warheads with viable delivery systems.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 3 points 2 years ago

Yeah, exactly. Nobody's going to attack China even if technically they can't cripple the entire country with their retaliation. Losing a few key cities should be enough of a deterrent.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A concern with nuclear proliferation is the small nation states might make nukes and give them to others to use. As an example, Iran is arming Houthis in Yemen as well as other groups. If Houthis detonated a nuke on a target, it would take some time to determine where the nuke came from, and in the days and weeks following would Iran then be nuked?

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Probably not. Just conventionally bombed Dresden style.