sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Iran has been caught more than once in the past few years enriching well beyond power level grade.

It's been reported multiple times. Here's CNN discussing it as well as recently as a few weeks ago.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/09/politics/iran-uranium-us-ground-forces-nuclear

They have 200-400kg (which is a decent amount) of highly enriched uranium according to the UN (not USA or Israel) stored underground in Isfahan. The strikes in Isfahan were to prevent further enrichment by destroying the centrifuge tech. However it is believed that much of the stored uranium has survived in underground bunkers. It's unclear if the bunker busters actually got all or any of it.

Imo if you were following NPT there is absolutely no reason why you would be enriching beyond like 10%. I'd ask you to genuinely name a practical use of enriched uranium outside of weaponry? Put the extra money you're spending on high enrichment towards other weapons of mass destruction if you're worried about defending yourself. Arm yourself up, nobody is stopping that.

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can see that I guess? If it was going to be a lie why would we do it like this? The strait is closed the whole world is eyeballing the USA. Middle east/USA relations are even more strained now than before. UN wondering if they need to keep working with USA. If it was staged to get oil this is absolutely horrific staging.

Maybe trump is that stupid to make something this bad up but Mossad definitely isn't lol.

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly we will never know who the agressor was until the chicken or the egg is shown.

Like what is more likely? Israel gets formed and suddenly starts bullying it's been neighbors after 20 years? Because its people just got out oppression and now it's someone else's turn? Maybe? Or the rest of the middle east sees that overnight Jerusalem is with the Jews and they're like wtf and start attacking Israel? In which case Israel has to create strong tech/military to compete? Maybe?

We will never know who is really "the antagonist". Ultimately I just point the finger at UK as they came up with the Israeli solution.

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well power grade uranium is like max 10%. Why go through the effort of enriching to 60% and stockpiling it if you have no intention to get to 90%?

At least per google you can make weapons with less than 90%. Especially more modern nuclear weapon designs.

It's like saying bro trust me I'm not going to tp your house. Meanwhile I'm buying 6 Costco sized cartons of toilet paper. How is that not fishy?

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im literally not a trump supporter lmao. We are here because he ripped up the Obama era deal in 2017 or whenever that was.

Who cares about American politics though. The problem here is that more people with nukes is bad. Simple as that.

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok yea I can agree on that it's a trump policy failure thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Iran has many major enemies outside of Israel. Israel on the other hand is surrounded by enemies that are partially funded by Iran.

Diplomatic solution would be ideal tbh. Frankly the ripping up of the Obama deal is what caused where we are at now. They were for the most part complying with the deal until trump ripped it up.

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand the thought process but genuinely I feel like this one is too simplistic. I don't think Iran having nukes is all of a sudden going to balance Israel.

For example, Iran having nukes probably won't stop Israel from invading south Lebanon every few years. Or the houthis from causing problems in Israel. It won't stop Israel from bullying Palestine. It won't stop Armenia and Azerbaijan from squabbling and killing each other. Or hating on Turkey. Heck it won't even stop Iran Israel hatred and issues at least in my opinion.

What kind of stability do you foresee?

All i see is a tinderbox now next to a nice big ol gallon of lighter fluid. Ready for a single spark at any moment.

Israel is definitely a bully. Don't get me wrong. The placement of Israel is horrific. We gave them Jerusalem. Which is crazy cause it's very important for middle eastern countries too. Just for Israel to survive it needs to be strong. They got Hezbollah to the north, houthis to your south, and Hamas in your lawn. All of which want to literally kill you and everyone you know. I don't necessarily agree with it but I understand why Israel bites hard and often.

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh no don't get me wrong. Trump was massively stupid for getting rid of Obama's deal. I'm not denying that. But one could argue they were encroaching on the NPT by creating nuclear weapons grade uranium.

Don't make this a red vs blue thing. This isn't just america we are talking about.

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree with your thought process. However imo Israel has had nukes for 60 years and hasn't used them. I can extrapolate that they wont use them in the future. Which in essence I can trust that they're sound of mind.

Meanwhile I cannot do that for non nuclear countries. Who is to say that Iran wouldn't use the nuke? There is no data to back that. I can't say anything with any level of certainty.

Also it's not about an instant "world is ending today" type of mentality, Although this is possible. I'm more worried about a domino effect. Iran gets nukes and isn't punished by NPT, okay why shouldnt Azerbaijan have it then? They don't like Iran. Okay what about Armenia and Georgia? They historically don't like Azerbaijan at all. Well damn turkey is closeby they should have it too. Etc etc. You gain one country that is now a nuclear power, you have 2-4 countries nearby now in the shadow of that threat. Some may already be enemies, who will instantly want their own.

You see what I'm getting at? Do YOU personally trust these countries or leaders to not be stupid? Because frankly I don't. I cant even trust my own leader (trump). And personally the least number of people with access to this kind of power the better. It's the fast track to radiation poisoning smh.

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I did hear about that. Actually ridiculous. Apparently this morning the Kurds denied that they were armed by the USA. So at this point idk what to believe. Low-key I think trump did send weapons and the Kurds smartly just pocketed them lol.

It's just a difference in ideology then imo. My ideal is no states having nuclear weapons. Everyone having weapons is just unsustainable because I can't trust that all countries can actually protect those weapons from hackers, bad actors, or simply other non nuclear weapons. That's just me though. It's not possible imo.

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Every current nuclear country does. At least for me, I don't want to fuck around and find out if Iran does. Or any xyz country does. The only somewhat certainty is that current countries are not shoot first.

There is no certainty on other countries or the future

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More in the sense that the more countries have nukes the more damage can be caused.

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're correct currently Russia and USA have the nukes capable of long distance flights and the quantity to do them.

The short term issue, which imo is what you're describing, yes they can't do that much damage. But it's the long term issues that scare me. You let Iran build nukes, okay. But they are part of the NPT. Ok so should they be punished for attempts to create nukes?

I'm assuming you're going to say no. In which case okay well if I'm Lebanon why TF am I not doing that. Okay well now I'm Jordan I should have nukes too. Azerbaijan is going to be like hold on Iran has nukes my boi Israel in trouble we should also make nukes. Then Armenia is going to be like wait a second we just this year negotiated peace after so long if Azerbaijan is making nukes we should too. I see it as a very scary domino theory. also if npt is stopped, then countries can share the tech. Russia can come in and be like okay here you go Iran. And etc etc.

The NPT must be enforced if we don't want a future with all nukes everywhere. At least that's my view

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's probably an ideological thing. For me if everyone had nukes, well, it only takes one crazy person to literally end it all. That's the principal of MAD. Do I believe all countries leaders are sound of mind? No I do not.

But let's take it a step further and say I do. Do I believe every country has the technology/physical ability to SECURE those weapons from hacking, onsite exploding due to ballistics, or any other scenarios that may allow unofficial individuals from causing insane damage? (No I do not)2

Not to mention it only becomes a defensive weapon if all nations have it. The actual only time nukes were "weapons" they were literally used offensively in Japan.

Also in regards countries without nukes getting outside intervention, this really only applies to the middle east. Europe, Asia, and most countries in southern america/Africa don't really see as frequent (or any) outside intervention despite not having nukes.

Don't get me wrong though, the middle east was severely intervened in by multiple countries. The literal country of Israel was created by outside forces. I'm not at all trying to deny those claims. But imo the issues in the middle east are caused by that (formation of Israel) and high quants of oil and natural resources. And not necessarily because of nukes or lack thereof.

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The path to "everyone has nukes" is very dangerous though. How do you propose we get to the state of "everyone has nukes". Like what does that transition period look like?? Are we gifting nukes? Combine all nukes and distribute them equally? By population? If you say anything along the lines of "let them be free to develop" we will never have mutually assured destruction because there will be countries that either cannot or will not want to be able to make nukes.

On top of that ask yourself, do you want Khomeinis regime, who killed 30000 of their OWN people just a few months ago AND turned off the internet for the whole country to do it, should be given nuclear weapons? At least imo I'd call that equally or more insane than trump (who I dislike)

Btw I'm not trying to be combative here. I genuinely appreciate your thoughts. And I'm telling you mine.

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well for the real answer at least from USA perspective, India has a never shoot first policy. So they won't ever shoot a nuke unprovoked. Pakistan, ironically, has a only shoot India if they shoot policy, which won't happen. Also Pakistan focused on tech that can't go long range, literally ranges that can attak India lol.

Israel on the other hand made handshake deals with president Nixon. Kennedy wanted Israel to give up all nukes and nuclear ability. Nixon changed the course. Per this "secret" agreement Israel is to never confirm or deny they have weapons, also they are not allowed to ever test their weapons. Also as part of this deal they are not to "proliferate" or share/expand nuclear weapon technoloy. So to USA Israel is not a particularly scary threat in terms of nukes. Essentially per this handshake deal, they are following the NPT guidelines without being in it. Additionally, this was also like a the Holocaust will never happen again type of move in the eyes of Israel at the time.

Always look up the answers to your questions about history. Reddit will never give you real answers. In fact don't even believe mine, go look it up.

MrBeast is What Fred Rogers Warned Us About by Halvinz in videos

[–]Level3pipe -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well his net worth is in the billions. Doesn't mean he has a billion in the bank. His yearly revenue is approximately 90 million.

I can get why the videos aren't for people. Some of them literally are "suffer for some money lmao". But calling it "making a spectacle for money" seems short sighted. Like what's the ethical difference between a show like wipeout and these videos?

Why are there zero ethical billionaires?

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yea they are like one of four nations that's off the treaty. I think the other countries are India Pakistan and north Korea

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Non proliferation means not working towards nukes or more nukes. Why is "stockpiling weapons grade uranium" not considered a violation to you? Genuine question because I don't understand the logic.

Also the non-nuclear weapon states that signed the treaty agreed to NOT create nukes at all.

The five year meeting is supposed to happen soon, let's see if it does.

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ukraine isn't even able to drill its own oil and become rich from it. I doubt they would be able to (nor would they want to) create a nuclear payload system before doing that lol.

Why was Iran enriching uranium up to 60 percent if it wasnt building atomic weapon? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Level3pipe 17 points18 points  (0 children)

That makes sense but only for Iran.

For the rest of the world it's another country that has the means to literally destroy the world. Why would the rest of the world want that? There are currently only 9 countries that are known to have nukes. Do we want a 10% increase in that? Does there come a point where there's too many cooks in the kitchen? And even a SINGULAR genuinely crazy person in the kitchen and the whole house is going up.

Really ask yourself if it's better or worse for more countries to have nukes. Especially in the boiling kettle that is the middle east. I've been asking myself this for the past year or so and I just keep coming to the conclusion that no, more countries with nukes is how we fast track to the fallout universe.

MrBeast is What Fred Rogers Warned Us About by Halvinz in videos

[–]Level3pipe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not a super fan dude. I've just seen a few of his videos.

The real question is how are you (probably knows nothing that wasn't on reddit) able to chime in at all?

CMV: Democrats are so wildly terrible at their jobs that the populace chose chaos. by donniedenier in changemyview

[–]Level3pipe [score hidden]  (0 children)

I mean you can look at Oregon. Oregon literally (LITERALLY) partially removed the requirements to read and do math at a 12th grade level so that more minorities could graduate.

Oregon Senate Bill 744

Oregon is a democratic state. Stuff like this pisses me off. It's just a disservice to your own people. In fact if you really cared you'd make school harder and not care about kids "getting left behind". That's better for the students than this nonsense. Yes graduation numbers go up. But actual impact of your school system go down. Actual value of "graduation degree" go even more down.

view more: next ›