Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by _DeadFred_ 13 days ago
Why does HN flag valid replies like this dead?

tristanj 3 hours ago [dead] | root | parent | next [–]

> Iran was nowhere near having nuclear weapons. No, that's outdated. Iran had ~440kg of uranium enriched to 60%, enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons enriched to weapons grade. Given Iran's enormous centrifuge fleet, enrichment to enough material for a single weapons grade nuke would take 2-3 days. To enrich the entire amount would take 2-3 weeks.

This comes straight from the 2025 IAEA report.

https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enri...
2 comments
bigyabai 12 days ago
Iran has had a stockpile of >100kg medium-enriched uranium for decades. The "enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons" scare line has been repeated since the 1990s, and it's not really any better of an argument today.
link
tristanj 12 days ago
You're conflating the old 'Iran is N months from a bomb' predictions (which you have good reason to be skeptical of) with documented IAEA stockpiles. Iran had 440.9 kg of 60% highly-enriched U on June 13, 2025 per the final IAEA report, and that is new material, not decades-old, since Iran didn't produce any 60% until April 2021. Iran had no 60% material prior to 2021.

60% enriched material is very highly enriched, it's approximately ~98-99% of the way to weapons grade, in terms of total work required.

link
bigyabai 12 days ago
Medium-enriched is generally defined as anything in the 10-90% enrichment range. The IAEA is extremely clear that Iran possessed medium-enriched uranium as far back as 2010: https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/gov2011-6...

We all know how cascade enrichment works, having 20% or 60% enrichment is still not equivalent to having the bomb. It is directly commensurate to the "Iran is N weeks away from the bomb!" because people are just extrapolating enrichment time without any other metrics included.

link
_DeadFred_ 12 days ago
Knowing the numbers we are talking about isn't a scare line. Knowing the related facts should not be downvoted to [dead] on HN. Hiding facts feels manipulative/propaganda-y and not Hacker News worthy. A comment like yours seems the more appropriate response wouldn't you agree?
link
bigyabai 12 days ago
> Knowing the numbers we are talking about

Which numbers? "enough for 9-10 nuclear weapons" is a stupid figure, you could come up with similar scare quotes for raw uranium ore if you extrapolated the refinement process. It's a dishonest tactic that has been tossed around for decades without much meaning.

The upstream claim that Iran would have ICBMs with nuclear warheads is just not true. Iran does not have any credible ICBM in their inventory, nor a known reentry vehicle, nor a strategy that would enable them to fight anyone besides regional powers like Israel. I did not flag their comments, but this kind of extraordinary "flood the zone" logic is consistent with what HN ends up flagging in the long run.

link
tristanj 13 days ago
It's automatic, the information trips the content filters.
link