How close do we think Iran really was to nukes?

quote:

---

Yes, spent nuclear fuel from a civilian nuclear power plant can, in theory, be used to develop a nuclear warhead, but it requires significant technical expertise, specialized facilities, and complex processes. Here's a concise explanation:
Spent Nuclear Fuel Composition: Spent fuel from civilian reactors contains:

Residual uranium (mostly uranium-238 with <1% uranium-235, too low for weapons without further enrichment).

Plutonium isotopes, primarily plutonium-239 (Pu-239), produced when uranium-238 absorbs neutrons during reactor operation. Pu-239 is fissile and suitable for nuclear weapons.

Fission products and other transuranic elements (radioactive waste).

Plutonium-239 for Weapons:
Pu-239 is the key material that could be used for a nuclear warhead. A typical 1,000 MW pressurized water reactor produces about 200-300 kg of plutonium annually in spent fuel, of which roughly 60-70% is Pu-239.

For a nuclear warhead, about 4-8 kg of weapons-grade plutonium (ideally >90% Pu-239) is needed for a basic implosion-type bomb, though reactor-grade plutonium (with higher Pu-240 content) can also be used, albeit with technical challenges.

Challenges and Requirements:
Reprocessing: To extract Pu-239, spent fuel must be reprocessed using chemical processes (e.g., PUREX) in specialized facilities. This is complex, costly, and requires handling highly radioactive materials.

Plutonium Quality: Reactor-grade plutonium (from civilian reactors) has higher levels of Pu-240, which can cause pre-detonation issues in weapons, making it less ideal than weapons-grade plutonium but still usable for crude devices.

Technical Expertise: Designing and building a functional warhead requires advanced knowledge of nuclear physics, metallurgy, and explosives, along with precision engineering for the implosion mechanism.

Safeguards and Detection: Spent fuel is heavily monitored under international safeguards (e.g., IAEA). Diversion of material would likely be detected, as reprocessing facilities are tightly regulated and not widely available.

Practicality: While technically feasible, the process is highly impractical for most actors due to the need for sophisticated infrastructure, expertise, and the risk of detection. Countries or groups seeking nuclear weapons would more likely pursue dedicated enrichment or plutonium production programs (e.g., using specialized reactors) rather than relying on civilian spent fuel.
In summary, spent nuclear fuel contains plutonium that could theoretically be used for a nuclear warhead, but the process is extremely complex, tightly regulated, and impractical for most scenarios.

---

quote:

---

Probably closer than we realized. Some nations should never have nukes. Iran tops that list

---

quote:

---

Ike's "atoms for peace" program was one of the most retarded policy decisions in American history

---