News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Trump says US has bombed Fordo nuclear plant in attack on... by sorcerer-mar on Saturday June 21, 2025 @11:39PM (#44343321)
I don’t think you even believe the words you’re writing.
Re:Trump says US has bombed Fordo nuclear plant in attack on... by Retric on Saturday June 21, 2025 @11:42PM (#44343335)
Everything I just said was factually accurate.

There’s a lot of misunderstanding around this stuff. Technically all you need for a bomb is the ability to go prompt critical on demand which you can do at surprisingly low enrichment levels. What’s a useful weapons grade enrichment to you has a lot to do with your delivery systems not some universal constant. If you’re looking to fit something in a WWII bomber or early generation ICBM that imposes specific limitations.

Re:Trump says US has bombed Fordo nuclear plant in attack on... by sorcerer-mar on Sunday June 22, 2025 @09:15AM (#44346700)
Being able to produce weapons grade uranium != producing weapons grade uranium. It's not that complicated.

And yes, in an alternative universe where delivery systems also just appear out of nowhere, you could sprinkle a million tons of 1% uranium over a city.

Re:Trump says US has bombed Fordo nuclear plant in attack on... by Retric on Sunday June 22, 2025 @03:32PM (#44349617)
It’s not about delivery systems just appearing, the logistics of tossing around nuclear weapons in the Middle East using modern technology allows for a vastly larger bombs without significant issues.

You can buy a used A380 for a few 10’s of millions. Convert that to a drone is fairly cheap, and you end up with a deleverage system vastly cheaper than the cost of producing a nuclear bomb.

Obviously a subsonic aircraft isn’t ideal, but historic ICBM’s ended up being designed for multiple bombs that’s a lot of leeway if you use the same system to deliver a single bomb. What the US considered weapons grade in the 40’s through the Cold War is based on assumptions that simply don’t apply here.