Iran And The Bomb

Factual Questions
1

I’ve been hearing in the news lots of stories regarding how long it would take Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. Why the talk of needing 10,000 or even 50,000 centrifuges? Why should it take them years more time to make one?

What I mean is, that starting pretty much from scratch, we managed to build at least 3 (test, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) during WWII. Since then the knowledge of how to build one has, pretty much, become readily available. Why the problem of producing weapons grade material? Did we need that many centrifuges and was it that much trouble during WWII? In other words, “What gives?”

2

I think you’re way to high on the number of centrifuges, but I’ve wondering this exact same thing for quite some time. It would seem that an Iranian “Manahttan Project” (Tehran Project?) could produce a bomb in a couple years.

3

You have to take uranium, turn it into a gas, and separate the isotopes. This takes a very long time to do, so making it a million different jobs instead of one big one makes it much easier and much quicker.

That said, their ability to enrich uranium depends on the quantity of U-235 (the desirable uranium isotope for bombs) in their uranium, how much of it they have, and the experience of their scientists and technicians. Then they have to actually build a bomb, which any nuclear scientist can tell you is not easy. There’s a reason why we tested for 50 years- just because you think it will work doesn’t mean it will.

They’re also doing it on the sly. What we were doing was a secret, sure, but it was also during a war, with a relatively small number of people in a few widely spaced locations. Iran has to build a bomb under intense scrutiny, which is hard to do.

Last, it took us 4 years to put together the material for three bombs, after which we had none left. It’s going to take them years to make enough to make just one bomb, let alone many.

4

[QUOTE=nebco9]
I’ve been hearing in the news lots of stories regarding how long it would take Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. Why the talk of needing 10,000 or even 50,000 centrifuges? Why should it take them years more time to make one?
What I mean is, that starting pretty much from scratch, we managed to build at least 3 (test, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) during WWII. Since then the knowledge of how to build one has, pretty much, become readily available. Why the problem of producing weapons grade material? Did we need that many centrifuges and was it that much trouble during WWII? In other words, “What gives?”
[/QUOTE]
Read a history of WWII and THE Bomb.
It takes a whole lot of refinning equipment AND know how to build a nuclear weapon .
R&D along the way to ensure things don’t go astray.
Maybe not as long as in the forties, but years not months !

PS: Cetrifuges? Never heard of them on The Manhattan Project. (came later.)

5

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I think you’re way to high on the number of centrifuges, but I’ve wondering this exact same thing for quite some time. It would seem that an Iranian “Manahttan Project” (Tehran Project?) could produce a bomb in a couple years.
[/QUOTE]

The news keeps reporting 10,000 to 50,000 centrifuges. That’s why I started this thread.

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
You have to take uranium, turn it into a gas, and separate the isotopes. This takes a very long time to do, so making it a million different jobs instead of one big one makes it much easier and much quicker.

That said, their ability to enrich uranium depends on the quantity of U-235 (the desirable uranium isotope for bombs) in their uranium, how much of it they have, and the experience of their scientists and technicians. Then they have to actually build a bomb, which any nuclear scientist can tell you is not easy. There’s a reason why we tested for 50 years- just because you think it will work doesn’t mean it will.

They’re also doing it on the sly. What we were doing was a secret, sure, but it was also during a war, with a relatively small number of people in a few widely spaced locations. Iran has to build a bomb under intense scrutiny, which is hard to do.

Last, it took us 4 years to put together the material for three bombs, after which we had none left. It’s going to take them years to make enough to make just one bomb, let alone many.
[/QUOTE]

To my understanding, the Los Alamos Primer is pretty readily available, so the basic knowledge is there. I’m sure that much more knowledge of the design is available now, than was then. The problem seems to be the “weapons grade material.” We may have had no material left after the first 3 bombs, but we sure started churning them out by the thousands a few years later. Not only us, but Russia too.

Why is it such a major problem with 60 years of experience in nuclear technology? Something like 7 other countries have the bomb. Did it take them that long and that many centrifuges to develop it?

[QUOTE=spingears]
Read a history of WWII and THE Bomb.
It takes a whole lot of refinning equipment AND know how to build a nuclear weapon .
R&D along the way to ensure things don’t go astray.
Maybe not as long as in the forties, but years not months !

PS: Cetrifuges? Never heard of them on The Manhattan Project. (came later.)
[/QUOTE]

The need for centrifuges seems to be the big topic in the news for the last couple of months.

Things seem to have advanced a lot in 60 years. Iran has something like 15 nuclear facilities working at some level at this time. With all this advancement in knowledge, experience, and design I would think it should be a lot easier now!

6

A bit of exaggeration about how far Iraq has come does not hurt US politics one little bit either.

Sounds a bit familiar, anyone remember those nuclear bomb detonator capacitors that Saddam held aloft a couple of years back ?

Didn’t hirt the US case for WMD at all, except that we know the truth of all that propaganda now, and many of us recognised it for th elies it was.

Why is the story about Iran so very differant ?

7

[QUOTE=casdave]
A bit of exaggeration about how far Iraq has come does not hurt US politics one little bit either.

Sounds a bit familiar, anyone remember those nuclear bomb detonator capacitors that Saddam held aloft a couple of years back ?

Didn’t hirt the US case for WMD at all, except that we know the truth of all that propaganda now, and many of us recognised it for th elies it was.

Why is the story about Iran so very differant ?
[/QUOTE]

Please, lets not turn this into “political agenda” discussion. I’m only looking for facts regarding the making of “weapons grade” material.

8

[QUOTE=nebco9]
To my understanding, the Los Alamos Primer is pretty readily available, so the basic knowledge is there. I’m sure that much more knowledge of the design is available now, than was then.
[/QUOTE]

The Manhattan project used a gaseous diffusion to enrich uranium. The K-25 diffusion plant was big, expensive, and the process required a lot of power. Modern gas centrifuges are more efficient in terms of energy, but you still need a lot of them to get much product:

Iran says it has 160 centrifuges now, so it’d take them over six years to purify enough U[sup]235[/sup] to build a bomb.

9

[QUOTE=Squink]
The Manhattan project used a gaseous diffusion to enrich uranium. The K-25 diffusion plant was big, expensive, and the process required a lot of power. Modern gas centrifuges are more efficient in terms of energy, but you still need a lot of them to get much product: Iran says it has 160 centrifuges now, so it’d take them over six years to purify enough U[sup]235[/sup] to build a bomb.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the links. It would seem that the “gaseous diffusion” type (besides being expensive) is a large facility, and would be easy to attack and destroy. The “gas centrifuge” type, OTOH, could be underground and dispersed over a wide territory. Makes sense to me.

BTW, do you, (or anybody else) know approximately when the US switched from diffusion to centrifuges? The rate at which we were making bombs during the cold war would have taken millions of centrifuges I would think.

10

Couldn’t Iran just get a lot of technical and material help from the People’s Republic of China to make their bomb(s). Or couldn’t China build Iran’s nuclear weapons for them to speed up the process?

11

[QUOTE=nebco9]
BTW, do you, (or anybody else) know approximately when the US switched from diffusion to centrifuges? The rate at which we were making bombs during the cold war would have taken millions of centrifuges I would think.
[/QUOTE]
here

Rippingtons_fan, reasons for anyone wanting to do that aside, China is a signatory to the NPT. They’d have to pull out before shipping weapons grade material to Iran. They’d get caught, and all hell would break loose.

12

FWIW, Tom Clancy thinks an industrialized nation (like Iran) could build The Bomb in about six months if they already have the plutonium and/or uranium handy. The bomb itself is a complicated device that would require precision engineering but the how-to is already out there. See the end note in The Sum of All Fears for scary details.

Also, Iran could be speeding up enrichment by using Calutrons (California cyclotrons) alongside their centrifuges. They may be old technology but they’ll get the job done. And Iraq tried it, so why not Iran too?

13

[QUOTE=nebco9]
I’ve been hearing in the news lots of stories regarding how long it would take Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. Why the talk of needing 10,000 or even 50,000 centrifuges? Why should it take them years more time to make one?

What I mean is, that starting pretty much from scratch, we managed to build at least 3 (test, Hiroshima, Nagasaki) during WWII. Since then the knowledge of how to build one has, pretty much, become readily available. Why the problem of producing weapons grade material? Did we need that many centrifuges and was it that much trouble during WWII? In other words, “What gives?”
[/QUOTE]

remember to that while it doesn’t take much HEU to make a bomb (25-30Kg), it takes tons of EU to power a reactor. Whether Iran is just using their power plant plans as a cover or whether they are serious about building domestic power plants, they will need a lot of centrifuges to make that happen. And the US doesn’t (I don’t believe) use HEU for weapons. It is apparently easier to use Pu instead. To get that you need a reactor.

14

[QUOTE=rbroome]
And the US doesn’t (I don’t believe) use HEU for weapons. It is apparently easier to use Pu instead. To get that you need a reactor.
[/QUOTE]

HEU is used in some US weapon designs.