this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
10 points (77.8% liked)

Explain Like I'm Five

17480 readers
1 users here now

Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!

Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] drperil@lemm.ee 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The common answer is nuclear proliferation. Power is one thing but it’s just a hop away from weapons.

The international community has a vested interest in some of the more… reactionary… countries not having weapons of mass destruction.

That said, the reality isn’t so simple and often these arguments make for good excuses to justify acting on other interests.

It’s an incredibly complex topic.

[–] infinitevalence@discuss.online 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Normal enrichment for power and domestic use is around 5%. Iran is enriching to 60% which is only ever used as a precursor to building weapons.

That said there are no good reasons other than to distract from the genocide in Gaza. This whole thing is a sideshow so they can finish the job there first.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

They are over 83% at this point

[–] infinitevalence@discuss.online 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] infinitevalence@discuss.online 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Good reason to be suspect but I don't know if it's enough to claim they are enriching to that level.

[–] BussyCat@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

There isn’t really any reason to enrich to 60% if you aren’t going for weapons grade, 20% HALEU fuel is the highest breakeven I know of where the benefit to enrich to 20% can in certain reactors outweigh the cost of enrichment but even then 20% is considered uncommonly high for most power plants 60% is just another beast with a hugely added cost

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yes, but they pinky swear that one batch was a mistake. /s

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

And TBF they only started gradually enriching to higher levels when the US broke their own nuclear agreement.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

They're worried about nuclear weapons.

[–] ultranaut@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

There's established rules about operating your nuclear program that says don't use it for producing nuclear weapons, only for nuclear energy or scientific research. If you start doing things like enrich uranium for weapons the existing nuclear powers don't like it. The US finds this a useful mechanism for achieving foreign policy goals.

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 4 points 2 weeks ago

There’s a genuine risk that if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, they might actually use it against Israel - they’ve more or less said as much. From a purely strategic standpoint, it makes more sense to act before they get there than to wait and deal with the consequences after. I think the U.S.’s role here would be to take out the underground facilities using their bunker-buster bombs, which Israel doesn’t have.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

All posturing and bullying aside ….

Building a nuclear weapon is “easy” and the knowledge is generally available. However enriching uranium is much tougher. For many decades the most effective way to limit nuclear weapon proliferation has been to restrict enrichment efforts.

I hope you’re not questioning why it’s a good idea to limit how many countries have nuclear weapons. Sure, the ones that have them are due for plenty of criticism but you can’t escape the math of more countries with nuclear weapons means more chances of someone using one.

As a citizen of the only country to use a nuke in anger …. I’m fine with everyone else calling that out assuming they’re serious about preventing it from ever happening again

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They want a monopoly on Force. Simple as that. They want to be able to enforce their will upon countries and nuclear weapons would stop them from doing that. That's the entire reason.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I mean, they're about 75 years too late for a monopoly.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Because the USA goes after anyone that fucked with their financial interests.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Because you could easily make a bomb if you're good at enriching. And they really, really don't trust Iran. Other countries are allowed to use nuclear power, including non-Western ones like Brazil and Mexico.

It's also worth noting the standard reactor designs need slight enrichment, but not all do. Canada's CANDU reactors have run on natural uranium for decades, and could in theory run on depleted uranium if you were to mix in plutonium or other actinides extracted from nuclear waste.

[–] Cyberflunk@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I was just telling little Jimmy about being a miner in the actinides mines....

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is this a quote? A search turns up nothing.

[–] Cyberflunk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

It was an attempt at humor since this is in ELI5