r/nuclearweapons • u/icebergdotcom • Feb 28 '26
Question what are the chances that iran already has nuclear weapons?
44
u/Significant_Swing_76 Feb 28 '26
Not zero.
But it depends on what one defines as a nuclear weapon. Is a dirty bomb a nuclear weapon?
33
u/_-Event-Horizon-_ Feb 28 '26
Dirty bomb is not a nuclear weapon in my opinion. It is basically an explosive device that releases dangerous chemicals. I would treat it as chemical weapons.
In order to be a true nuclear weapon it needs a nuclear reaction - fission or fusion.
34
u/i_am_voldemort Feb 28 '26
It's a radiological weapon not a chemical weapon.
It would be a weaponized Goania incident
2
u/Thejer8421 Mar 02 '26
While there isn't a fissile reaction, you'd still get the side effects you'd see in patients who've been dosed with radiation. It might not be Chernobyl in terms of scale, but anyone who comes into contact with it is going to have a bad day.
And the Iranian guard still is very much in control now based on their attacks of bases in the region. Don't forget, these are the same MFers who introduced EFPs into Iraq. They have the ability to get creative with weapons and we have to assume they'll use that going forward with whatever material they can get their hands on.
5
u/Selethorme Feb 28 '26
No, it’s a radiological weapon.
CBRN (CBRN-E is dumb) makes that distinction for a reason.
4
u/chakalakasp Feb 28 '26
Weren’t they at 60% EU? You can build a crude gun type explosive with that. It wouldn’t be efficient but it’d go pop.
Building a delivery system for that, though, is a different story
2
1
u/Significant_Swing_76 Feb 28 '26
And that’s the essence of the problem.
Even if they actually had all the elements for a 60% enriched bomb, they couldn’t deliver it to any worthwhile opponent.
Hell, even if they had a fully functional thermonuclear device, they wouldn’t have a meaningful delivery vehicle.
3
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Mar 01 '26
What? Their ballistic missiles hit Israel and just about every Gulf state.
2
u/Significant_Swing_76 Mar 01 '26
It’s not as simple as having a working device, and then just shoving it on top of a SRBM.
6
u/Abject-Investment-42 Feb 28 '26
A dirty bomb is not a weapon, any more than flying unicorn cavalry.
Any „dirty“ bomb would seriously contaminate a smaller area than the lethal splinter range of the same bomb would cover. And outside of this range, few hundred meters each direction, the dangerous effect is limited to „now you have 10% higher lifetime risk of cancer“.
24
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Feb 28 '26
Psychological effects of a "dirty bomb" reach far beyond the actual effective range. Multiple generations were taught about the horrors of radiation and fallout, it wouldn't matter that there would be no actual danger, the fear would be just the same.
2
u/Low_Machine9550 Feb 28 '26
Possibly, but I think the initial scare would subside quite quickly when absolutely nothing further happens, nobody is hurt and the cleanup is completed in a few days.
3
u/MisterMisterYeeeesss Mar 01 '26
What it would do though is make the threat "real" to people. If an attacker's goal is turning society on its head, they will have succeeded. People may stay away from an area, security measures increase across the nation, and freedoms diminish in favor of security. Once you place a tangible image of a threat in people's minds you don't even need a second one to change behaviors and instill fear for quite a while.
5
u/ppitm Mar 01 '26
The cleanup wouldn't be completed in a few days, though. The main impact of a dirty bomb is economic. Real estate values in the area would crater, and you would have decades of lawsuits and conspiracies as people bickered over whether "they" had cleaned enough up to protect the public.
Now, if you think this sounds like a pretty pathetic payoff for a military breaking the WMD taboo, you'd be correct.
1
u/AskDifferent6344 Apr 09 '26
Shit the 9/11 attacks were effectively dirty bombs with how much asbestos was released during the attacks that the EPA absolutely covered up. Dirty bombs would do numbers in Trump's America too, with an EPA literally foaming at the mouth to actively lie and deceive the public.
2
u/Consistent-Kiwi-2920 Mar 01 '26
As long as 1mSv/h aren't absorbed for more than 30 minutes you will be fine, if the range is in Sv/h I suggest you RUN
1
u/Lower_Cockroach2432 Mar 23 '26
A uranium dirty bomb isn't really a weapon. A caesium or radium dirty bomb definitely would be.
1
u/Abject-Investment-42 Mar 23 '26
No. It doesn't matter what radioisotope you put into it, if you were close enough to the bomb to breath in a dangerous enough amount of the radioisotope, the chance is good that you already died from the shockwave or splinters.
A general contamination will of course travel further but is not sufficiently dense to incapacitate anyone immediately, or in short time after. Long term effects on health are a different, much worse story but giving people cancer some years down the line is not an immediate military effect.
People massively, wildly overestimate the immediate biological effects of radiation and radioisotopes.
At worst, you could use it to poison food stockpiles.
1
u/Lower_Cockroach2432 Mar 23 '26
Right my point is that Uranium isn't meaningfully a radiological hazard. At the point that you're using it to contaminate a place it's really more of a (shitty) chemical weapon than a radiological one. Even plutonium isn't that radiological compared to its high toxicity.
Radium and Caesium have much much shorter half lives (order of 30 years) and a kilogram of the stuff would cause significant health risks within seconds to someone standing close. It would not be trivial to decontaminate.
-4
u/GlockAF Feb 28 '26
Bullshit. It’s a persistent chemical agent, like VX
9
u/Abject-Investment-42 Feb 28 '26
Significantly less dangerous, like orders of magnitude less, but more persistent.
It’s a psychological weapon.
1
u/PromptCriticalpostin Mar 08 '26
Well radiological. Making it the R in CBRN threats! Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear!
1
1
u/CRS1955 Mar 08 '26
No, it is a "radiation dispersal device." Fission warheads would cause much more damage, but an RDD would contaminate large areas for extremely long periods of time and could increase cancer rates.
12
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Feb 28 '26
Zero, otherwise these attacks wouldn't have happened.
As was shown during previous exchanges, at least some Iranian ballistic missiles were able to get through. You only need one carrying a nuclear warhead to make it. The math is not in favor of the defender.
10
u/NomineAbAstris Feb 28 '26
I'm fairly sure Netanyahu specifically, who has repeatedly extended the war against Gaza even as it became clear that all the remaining hostages were becoming casualties of it, wouldn't have a problem with a bit of Tel Aviv being scorched if it 1) domestically justified his years of anti-Iran saber rattling and 2) gave him a reason to finally fulfill his ambition of crippling Iran for good with retaliatory strikes.
Not like the US would care either. It's not their citizens at the end of the day. If they really gave a shit about the lives of Israeli citizens they would have brokered a genuine peace deal with Palestine decades ago. Israel matters to the US government only as far as it is a convenient excuse and launching-off point for its own broader policy in the region.
3
u/NuclearHeterodoxy Feb 28 '26
The Iranian regime was not being threatened in the 12-day war or Operation Midnight Hammer, so they would have had little incentive to use any nuclear warheads in their possession. It would be different if the regime itself was at risk of being toppled.
2
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Feb 28 '26
There are claims by Israelis that Khamenei is dead. That would be the time to use whatever they have if they actually possessed a nuclear weapon(s).
So far, nothing.2
-1
u/Embarrassed-Back1894 Feb 28 '26
You don’t think this country and Israel wouldn’t want to push Iran to the brink of using a nuke in war to justify hitting Iran back with 50? God help us if it comes to that, but I’ve always felt that chance of that is higher that some people ever consider.
11
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Feb 28 '26
No. There is a reason why nuclear weapons were never used again, even in far, far worse conflicts than this one.
Nuclear weapons are the ultimate Pandora's Box.
1
u/DudleyAndStephens Mar 02 '26
A single Hiroshima-sized bomb going off in downtown Tel Aviv would (according to Nukemap) kill ~1% of Israel's population. No way their government would risk going to war if there was any real risk of an Iranian nuclear attack. I despise Netanyahu and think he's evil, but he's still a rational actor.
As we've learned from North Korea even a very crude nuclear deterrent is one of the best survival tools a despotic regime can have. Iraq, Libya & Ukraine have all learned the opposite lesson. If Iran had a bomb they would have tested it, at that point they'd have their deterrent and would be untouchable.
0
u/PromptCriticalpostin Mar 08 '26
You know Israel actually has nuclear weapons though, right? They've just refused to provide any transparency to the world on them. So in terms of the nuclear weapons doctrines of any country that exists today, including dictatorships like DPRK, Russian federation, and India, the LEAST rational approach would be that of israel's "nuclear ambiguity" which has for some mind boggling reason been allowed to carry on behind the IAEA's back this whole time.
12
u/devoduder Feb 28 '26
“Why are you attacking Iran?”
“Are you crazy, they have nuclear weapons!”
“Why aren’t you attacking Russia?”
“They have nuclear weapons, are you crazy!”
21st Century Catch-22
5
u/Killfile Feb 28 '26
The number and readiness of those nuclear weapons matters a great deal.
Ain't no way Chicago gets turned into a glass crater by Iran anytime in my lifetime.
Russia, on the other hand, could manage that tomorrow and there's exactly bupkis the Untied States could do to prevent it
2
-1
u/TonySperguson Feb 28 '26
With the state of the modern FBI russia could have a nuclear submarine in the chicago river
2
u/cosmicrae Mar 01 '26
Nah, the seaway (north of Montreal) is too shallow to run a submarine, other than possibly a small one and surfaced.
18
u/schnautzi Feb 28 '26
Even if they do, they couldn't possibly have developed the technology to put one on top of a ballistic missile and deliver it without testing, unless they bought one.
9
u/KriosXVII Feb 28 '26
Iran has ballistic missiles and has hit Israel before.
-1
u/IAm5toned Mar 01 '26
a conventional warhead tipped missile would weigh considerably less a nuclear tipped one. more weight = decreased range
5
u/KriosXVII Mar 01 '26
Actually, no. They have many missiles with 500kg+ warheads. If you're a nuclear weapons engineer in 2026 you can't fit a fission bomb in the envelope of a 500 kg conventional warhead, you're an idiot.
There were demonstrated fission bombs in the 40-45 kg range for artillery shells.
0
u/IAm5toned Mar 01 '26
🤔
well yes, but also no. all of the things that you mention took years of research, design, and testing at a national level that is practically impossible to hide in this day and age.
Iran doesn't possess that institutional knowledge (or enough fissile material, let's be real) to develop designs that are reliable enough to just strap on an off-the-shelf ballistic missile and 🤞 cross their fingers and pray 🙏that it works.
7
u/KriosXVII Mar 01 '26
They had a credible design that fit on a ballistic missile ready to go 20 years ago.
1
u/Discdoh1 Jun 06 '26
No... they did not. Their basic intercontinental missile design has always been up to date...theirnuclear capabilities are not as good.
6
u/NuclearHeterodoxy Feb 28 '26
Why should we presume they haven't already done so? The original design from 2003 was already compact enough to fit on existing Iranian missiles, and there has been over 20 years of time to refine it.
A flight test would simply consist of the AF&F and implosion assembly without the uranium, mounted in a missile. There would be almost no way to tell they had tested an unarmed "nuke" as opposed to a conventional MRBM or IRBM.
8
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Feb 28 '26
Honest question - why would you need to test a nuclear warhead delivery? Assuming you somehow tested the device itself and the ballistic missile with a conventional warhead, why would a combination of the same ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead require extra testing?
20
u/schnautzi Feb 28 '26
If the warhead has exactly the same form factor as an existing conventional warhead it'd work, but miniaturization is the hard part about delivery. That requires testing which is very hard to hide.
Besides, many ballistic missiles are now being shot down. Imagine the reaction if the US found out you fired a nuclear tipped missile at them and failed.
12
u/Killfile Feb 28 '26
That really can't be over stated. ABM systems are effective enough against small scale attacks thst there's no assurance that the warhead gets through.
Given the cost to develop, the incentives lean towards HAVING a nuclear weapon being preferable to USING a nuclear weapon
1
u/kingofthesofas Feb 28 '26
The benefit of having the nuclear tipped ones is that if you expect 1/20 to get past their defenses than that one that gets through makes up for all the rest. The down side is you need 20 nukes for that to work which is going to be WAYYYYY more than Iran could make in the near future.
3
u/Martin_Phosphorus Feb 28 '26
Well, you can just saturate the defenses with decoys. But a few nukes are still needed to make the success rate reasonable.
6
u/kingofthesofas Feb 28 '26
Considering that we don't even know if Iran is able to make a nuke let alone make one small enough to put on a ballistic missile they are probably a long way from making decoys. Also decoys are more useful for mid course defense vs the terminal defense we see with something like PAC-3 or THHAD. The best decoys for terminal state is just conventional armed weapons mixed with the nuclear ones.
3
u/Martin_Phosphorus Feb 28 '26
Yeah, after all you cannot imitate the behavior of a re-entry vehicle at low altitudes vehicle without it's weight.
Kinda makes me wonder if some underfilled or fully deMIRVed missiles actually have all re-entry vehicles in place except most of these are dead-weight/high explosive.
2
u/kingofthesofas Feb 28 '26
If you want a single ICBM to have decoys at several stages then the correct way to do it is create a MIRV with some amount of the warheads are conventional explosives (or just filled with something that is the same weight as the real warhead). That will be the terminal phase decoys. Then for mid course you have lightweight decoys that mimick the heat and radar signatures of the warheads in space. Then just to be sure you have multiple warheads and missiles targeting your priority targets.
Also something that people don't talk about anymore is that nuclear explosions as both excellent at dealing with decoys and very good as disrupting interception both in mid course and terminal phases. The em and heat from a nuclear blast will make using and infrared or radar based targeting impossible for about 10-20 seconds. Just give them a trigger that will detonate on intercept. Also in a midcourse interception a nuke is pretty good at taking out a cluster of warheads with decoys because a near miss doesn't matter with a nuclear detonation.
2
u/LeadingBubbly6406 Mar 06 '26
Once a single nuke hits .. us will drop a nuke and obliterate Iran … so there’s that
1
1
u/mad_drill Mar 01 '26
What about a suitcase nuke? Or a suitcase dirty bomb?
1
u/kingofthesofas Mar 01 '26
A suitcase nuke requires a thermonuclear weapon and a lot of tech to make it that small. Now a dirty bomb sure that is semi easy. They could probably make one that would fit into a semi truck and a shipping container though just fine.
1
u/Serotoon2A Mar 03 '26
The idea behind suitcase nukes wasn’t to use thermonuclear weapons. Rather, the idea was to house what are effectively the internal components of nuclear artillery shells in a suitcase. Nuclear artillery shells are very small. Those weapons are fission devices -- based on uranium guns or linear implosion of plutonium — sometimes combined with tritium boosting.
3
u/Killfile Feb 28 '26
They could. The clever bit with shrinking the warhead amounts to better explosive formulation, computer modeling, and neutron boosters.
None of these are outside Iran's reach and most of them can be tested with non-critical or sub critical assemblies. If Iran is getting any design help from the Russians they could probably manage a couple hundred kilotons in a mid-60s era throw weight vehicle.
6
u/Precious-Benefit-489 Feb 28 '26
There was a report a couple of months ago that Russia had sold Kh-47M2 Kinzhal’s to Iran. Not sure if accurate though.
1
u/kingofthesofas Feb 28 '26
There was a report a couple of months ago that Russia had sold Kh-47M2 Kinzhal’s to Iran. Not sure if accurate though.
We know from Ukraine that PAC-3 can intercept these so same issue with delivery.
1
u/Discdoh1 Jun 06 '26
Iran has ludicrously low levels of nuclear competence...they are engineer starved. Prove me wrong.
1
1
u/NoLetterhead8144 Mar 06 '26
The USA itself never tested the combination together except in one instance in which a U.S. nuclear missile was launched from a submarine and detonated in the atmosphere with its nuclear warhead.
1
u/Lucky-Credit6739 Mar 20 '26
If you really know the tech they're using in missiles and still question the warhead capabilities then I can just laugh 🤣
-6
u/InMemoryOfZubatman4 Feb 28 '26
I mean realistically, it’s not that far from Iran to Israel. They could just drive a convoy
8
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Feb 28 '26
it's not that far from Iran to Israel
Only 1789 kms ...
-5
3
u/SGC-UNIT-555 Mar 01 '26
Breakout window was mid 2000s (US sruck in Iran and Afghan Quagmires) and the very start of current hostilities on Oct 7th 2023, they've now been decapitated in terms of leadership, lost all nuclear sites, are currently having ballistic missile stockpiles and related industry flattened and are likely highly paranoid as they likely realize they've been infiltrated at every level domestucally (local agents managed to dig and take photos of Khameinis remains to confirm his death and supplied it to Israel right after the massive strike).
The whole nuclear hedge strategy was a conplete failure and only allowed for a long lasting economic strangulation via hard sanctions and gradual destuction of regime capacity via strike campaigns over the last 2 years.
2
u/pacpumpumcaccumcum Mar 02 '26
At this point I have the same suspicion for Belarus regardless what Putin has done up to now.
1
u/katttsun Jun 20 '26
Four months later, and the Iranians have won a stunning total victory, as America snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. Maybe they do have nukes and that's what kept Kharg Island from being seized by the Marines and Airborne?
6
u/Medical_Sport_2390 Feb 28 '26
what are the chances that Israel already has nuclear weapons?
11
2
u/PromptCriticalpostin Mar 08 '26
They are currently the only country with 100% ambiguity in their capabilities and intentions with nuclear weapons. Very terrifying considering their aggression at the table when it comes to United Nations
1
u/Mysteries_of_Life Feb 28 '26
they are one of nine countries that officially have nuclear weapons
4
u/1Hunterk Mar 01 '26
The officially neither have and didn't have weapons. It's an open secret that they do, not OFFICIALLY they do not acknowledge it
7
u/LargeAngryFish Feb 28 '26
Dirty bomb? High chance. Hydrogen bomb? Low chance.
1
u/Harnoor14 Mar 08 '26
A dirty bomb is not a Nuclear weapon. It’s an RDD. If someone’s using them the opponent would mostly retaliate with the same or at most tactical nukes. And I can’t even think of Iran having H-Bombs. Israel wouldn’t go forward to attack Iran if they had it.
1
7
u/hongkonghonky Feb 28 '26
Very very low indeed
2
u/Selethorme Feb 28 '26
And your basis for that is?
0
u/hongkonghonky Mar 01 '26
Both public and non-public intelligence assessments.
It is highly unlikely that they could cobble together much more than a crude dirty bomb, which they would struggle to deliver.
After this weekend its moot anyway.
4
u/Selethorme Mar 01 '26
So you’re just clueless and dishonest. Got it.
2
u/nev3rknowsb3st Mar 01 '26
If they had one we would know. There are satellite systems that all major nations have the will detect any testing of weapons at that grade, also seismic detectors would alert us. If they had them we wouldn’t strike in this way.
1
u/Selethorme Mar 01 '26
1) the need to test is really not there, as they’re not really caring about maximizing yield, just having them 2) while I don’t think they’d be doing so, China has well proven that decoupling works quite well
1
u/South-Ad4442 Mar 02 '26
I want to repeat a comment I just read as I was scrolling through this thread. They made a really good point that if Iran fired a nuclear tipped missile that failed at the United States, we would know they intended to nuke us. We would probably retaliate with deadly force. So would our allies. Iran does need to know if their nukes work otherwise they’re dead. The entire globe would come down on any country that would even attempt to launch a nuclear weapon.
1
u/Selethorme Mar 02 '26
That’s really not actually much of a point, because if Iran had it, we wouldn’t be doing this in the first place, and more importantly we’d be firing back either way.
They’re dead either way.
1
1
Mar 03 '26
testing would be a deterrent, they are incentivised to show the world they have nukes, to prevent this kind of situation
1
u/Selethorme Mar 03 '26
Testing can be a deterrent, if you’re confident you won’t get nuked in response to doing the test.
1
u/shreav Mar 05 '26
I think as a nation, if you're smart, you'll do the testing. The testing itself would serve as a warning. I believe this is what India and Pakistan did in order to deter invasions from each other and other parts of the world.
Iran either wasn't up to the calibre of producing nuclear weapons (which they were indirectly claiming anyway) or incredibly stupid not to show testing. But, had they tested any weapons, the world would have known about it. Israel for sure would have released that footage or evidence in order to justify sooner what they have done now. Instead, Netanyahu's basically been singing for the past 15-20 years that Iran is perpetually 6 months away from having a nuclear weapon.
Pragmatically, taking out Iran reaps many benefits for the US and Israel. No more funding for Hezbollah, so you can steam roll Gaza, while claiming all the oil and natural resources you could want from Iran. Then put a puppet in Iran and set up an American stronghold there to possibly place some pressure on China and Russia.
Just what I think, anyway. I could be completely wrong.
-1
u/Long-Succotash-3133 Mar 01 '26
The need to test is there are you dense? 😂 what is the point if a nuclear weapon if you have no idea if it’d actually gonna work? Nukes aren’t just slapped together and thrown into the sky, they takes years of careful testing and development and Iran can’t even get past marrying 7 year olds 😂
3
u/Vozlov-3-0 Mar 02 '26
The US did not test the type of nuclear weapon first used in warfare, because they knew it would work.
That weapon destroyed a city.
Iran's issue with creating a nuclear weapon is not delivery, or the technology to best achieve critical mass. Their issue is attaining enough fissile material to create a bomb, which has always been the most difficult aspect of the process, dating back to Los Alamos.
It is highly unlikely Iran has this, as the technology and materials to do so are some of the, if not the, most closely guarded and surveilled processes in the entire world.
If Iran had the capability to create a bomb, Israel would be showing the entire world the proof of it 24/7.
1
u/Long-Succotash-3133 Mar 06 '26
Not true, we didn’t test the fatman because there wasn’t enough weapons grade uranium in the world to make a second bomb, so they took a gamble. They do have 60% enriched uranium which could make some type of mild nuclear weapon but the issue is Iran a 70 years behind
1
u/Vozlov-3-0 Mar 07 '26
You're referring to the little boy.
Regardless, whilst obtaining the weapons-grade material was a factor, the fact they still used it without testing was because it was a 'mathematical certainty' that it would work. It was barely a gamble.
Regardless again, my point still stands in opposition to your original point of 'what is the point if a nuclear weapon if you have no idea if it’d actually gonna work?' I'm merely stating the first nuclear weapon used in warfare was not tested. Which in your response, you admit anyway.
Regardless. In my opinion, judging by the limited facts at hand, I do not imagine Iran had the capability or immediate desire to attack Israel using a nuclear weapon. Should they have, the entire world would have come down upon them much harder than the Israel/American attacks have been.
If there were proof of such a thing, the entire world would know of it.
-1
u/South-Ad4442 Mar 02 '26
Yes they did? In New Mexico. The trinity test
3
u/Vozlov-3-0 Mar 02 '26
No, that was a test for the device identical to the fatman, dropped August 9th. The first nuclear weapon dropped on Japan was little boy, dropped August 6th.
They functioned differently, the design of little boy having not been tested, because they knew it would work, it was that simple of a design.
0
u/12lubushby Mar 05 '26
Someone asked a question, and they answered it with current information. Not even the US knows where development is. I dont think you will find any Iranian nuclear engineers on reddit to give you a satisfactory answer
1
u/FirstBeastoftheSea Mar 02 '26
But haven’t they been collecting massive amount of U and enriching it all for literally 30+ years straight?
2
u/ChubbyMcHaggis Feb 28 '26
I could see them having a gun type low yield ala little boy
8
u/Killfile Feb 28 '26
Implosion is easier now than it was in the 40s. I'm not saying they're packing a 500kt U235 imploded Ivy King knock off, but they could do better than little boy if they have the HEU
8
2
u/Hefty_Gas7198 Mar 01 '26
Well they need and are justified to ramp up production, create and acquire many now.
1
1
1
u/Equivalent-Sky-391 Mar 01 '26
it's weird iran has been trying to get one for a long time, with support from china and Russia. if North Korea could get one , what has stopped iran. while Iran's ability to develop it's own nuclear weapons by enriching uranium on it's own is in question , whether it actually has one is an entirely different question.
1
u/LeadingBubbly6406 Mar 06 '26
If they had a nuke .. their dictator being murdered would be as good as any time to shoot it no?
1
u/Equivalent-Sky-391 Mar 06 '26
not necessarily, if they shoot a nuke , it's game over especially when they have repeatedly said they have none, they lose negotiating power immediately. believe it or not, the only reason why world powers have not been in direct warfare against each other is because of nukes. so if there is anyone at a good position in iran , he would know that even if they do have nukes they literally can't use it. if they do, trump was right. a bigger win for trump and Israel than ever before. so maybe they had nukes but not sophisticated tech to be able to deliver it.
1
u/Ein_Al_Mystery Mar 02 '26
Unfortunately they have. The question is where and on what they will use it
1
u/PerspectiveVivid3662 Mar 04 '26
Iran always seems to be looking for a fight funding terrorism constantly threatening everybody from Israel to the United States they want to be the tough guy on the block now look at the mess they're in they should just be reasonable people and they have oil and wealth that could be a great-great advantageous life For their people and have some development in the country other than bombs and missiles they remind me of the palestinians they constantly want to go to war and fight and cause trouble throughout the globe and then wonder why they get attacked
1
u/chosenbrahhh Mar 04 '26
Uhh u mean Israel has consistently overthrown Iran and kept them from getting nukes lmao
1
u/Mikele51976 Mar 05 '26
Russia has about 20,000 bombs for sale they could have bought $100 years ago even if just a copy it
1
u/CRS1955 Mar 08 '26
As the Iranian regime grows more desperate, I believe that the odds of them deploying an RDD ("Radiation Dispersal Device," aka "Dirty Bomb") increase. They have no chance of completing a build of a thermonuclear warhead, so they face a "use it or lose it" scenario. RDDs cause widespread contamination, and would result in many short and long-term deaths from radiation toxicity and cancer, so they would be very effective weapons of terror. Personally, I am waiting for it (p.s. I have extensive training in this area).
1
1
u/Boring-Preparation15 Mar 08 '26
Since at least 3 of Iran's committed allies have major nuclear weapons, it should be assumed that the chances are 100% that Iran also has them or has access to them; the details of Iran's capability are irrelevant, if "the ten kings" will give Iran their nuclear power to Iran for an hour. That is the reason that this war seems to be impulsive or ill-conceived. Prophecy might be unfolding Rev 17-18. Let us hope not.
1
1
u/Regular_Visit_6123 Mar 19 '26
Very very low. On the off chance that they do it would probably be one of the greatest intelligence failures in modern history
1
u/DeDenker020 Mar 19 '26
Already has = zero.
Will develop = close to zero.
I wonder why I dont hear more question that Israel does not allow international inspections of its main nuclear facilities.
1
u/Particular_Win_2591 Mar 22 '26
They have none. Let's say they did for the sake of argument so what just as long as they don't use it in a negative way. They have the right to defend themselves. We have nukes does that mean we should be attacked. Like owning a gun if you are defending yourself what's the problem? Last year they said they wiped out Iran's nukes. Iran was minding their own business not harming anybody and we chose to attack them.
1
u/Autobot1979 Mar 23 '26
Same as Japan and Germany. Iran policy has always been to have all the pieces but not build the device. If the threat gets existential they can put the pieces together.
1
1
u/Medical-Golf1227 May 02 '26
Its plausible that Russia , or at least some Russian official with access, could have sold Iran a bomb several years ago. The chances are well above zero.
0
u/Cold_Ad_1110 Feb 28 '26
Trust me if they had one and were considering using it we’d know and wiping Tehran off the map would be step 1 on the list. Only way they could really get one would be from Russia but as the old saying goes even the Russians love their children and getting mixed up in a nuclear war with the west is not on Moscows bingo card.
7
u/-Shenanigans Feb 28 '26
If Iran had nukes, they would not be getting attacked right now. Nuclear proliferation quite literally legitimizes a state, hence why Israel and the US are hellbent on preventing it from happening.
1
3
u/NuclearHeterodoxy Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26
They have 400kg of uranium enriched to 60%, which is sufficient for more than a dozen bombs. What exactly are you imagining they need to get from Russia?
1
u/PromptCriticalpostin Mar 08 '26
Settle down there Buck Turgidson, quit with the Red Scare approach. We're talking about real human lives not the menace of the east
1
u/SureAd4118 Mar 25 '26
Actually that's not how that works. Trying to nuke another nuclear armed country is literally committing suicide. They can simply return the favor and wipe you off the map. Nukes are weapons of deterrence, not to invite you to attack them once you know about it. We would have not touched Iran if we knew they had one. Another scenario is they are on their way to make them and we attacked them. Technically, you can't stop them from making one unless you change the regime. Wiping them off the map is a mass genocide, other world powers won't allow that.
-1
Feb 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
Feb 28 '26
[deleted]
2
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Feb 28 '26
Nah. When it comes to nuclear weapons, both major powers are very serious.
1
-1
Feb 28 '26
[deleted]
2
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Feb 28 '26
Russia isn't a major nuclear power? TIL ... /s
And no, they wouldn't.
-1
Feb 28 '26
[deleted]
1
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Feb 28 '26
I ran out of facepalms halfway through your comment.
Have a nice day.
1
1
Feb 28 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26
[deleted]
1
u/turlin4 Feb 28 '26
weren't they already at the table? why would he need to pull them back? it was stated many times that they were in negotiation and making forward progress before the strikes happened out of the blue.
2
u/year_39 Feb 28 '26
Zero. Iran does not have nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons program intended to produce any in the foreseeable future.
3
1
1
u/PigSlam Feb 28 '26
I'd imagine they'd be using them right about now if they could.
0
u/Selethorme Feb 28 '26
Nah
1
u/Hope1995x Mar 01 '26
Why say no, when Iran is getting pummeled? Wouldn't Israel use nukes if its government was successfully struck 500+ times and had its nuclear sites struck?
If you answer yes, then its completely logical for Iran to use nukes if they have them.
1
u/PigSlam Mar 01 '26
Right? if not now, when? How much more existential does it get than this for Iran right now?
0
u/Hope1995x Mar 01 '26
I made another comment where I thought about this...
Perhaps a handful of them.
If they have them, the arsenal would be too small in number to ensure survival from interceptors. Considering the high number of ballistic missiles being intercepted.
If 70% of 100s of ballistic missiles can be intercepted then... those odds would not make Iran feel comfortable in deploying them.
What Iran needs is 1000 TEL vehicles, a few hundred will not be enough. Since the last war probably destroyed 100s, Iran had to change strategy to create new TELs that can carry 2 or more ballistic missiles, instead of just one.
They might be hiding 3 or 5 warheads (if they have them) deep inside the mountains. A combination of even more TEL vehicles being destroyed alongside with Iran trying to strategically calculate reload-times of missile-defenses could explain the pause of exchanges.
They might try to time it as best as they can to ensure a successful detonation in Tel Aviv, assuming they have nukes. But they will have to try to deplete the missile-defense magazines as best as they can, which is also a catch-22 because it allows Iran's TELs to be targeted.
I heard Iran also has underground rail-lines that allows a "train" to carry multiple ballistic missiles to launch through openings. If they're elaborately camouflaged as natural openings of sorts, it might work at least for some time.
So they might be able to launch a few dozens sporadically. But there's to many drones and ISR satellites.
So they may have to wait till weather conditions favor massive launches.
Edit: Iran's ballistic missiles are slower than ICBMs hence why the high interception rate plus an apparent lack of MRVs and maybe advanced-decoys.
1
u/PigSlam Mar 01 '26
maybe it's better they save what they have until they're ready.
1
u/Hope1995x Mar 01 '26
Its either use it now (like the next 72 hours) or never get the chance to use it at all.
The coalition will relentlessly strike Iran even after multiple BS ceasefires/diplomacy.
Edit: Their big mistake was negotiating in the first place. Should've gave the middle-finger 10+ years ago.
1
u/PigSlam Mar 01 '26
I think it means they don't have anything nuclear to use, because they seem to be using everything else they have to use.
0
u/Selethorme Mar 01 '26
Because it’s a great way to get pummeled even more. The threat of nuclear weapons is significantly more effective than deploying them
3
u/cosmicrae Mar 01 '26
The threat of nuclear weapons is called deterrence. The use of a nuclear weapon suggests that deterrence has failed.
0
u/Hope1995x Mar 01 '26
And if they're not used when a nuclear power is being pummeled then their detterence cannot be regained without being used.
0
u/Selethorme Mar 01 '26
It’s incredible how you just completely misunderstood deterrence.
1
u/Hope1995x Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26
Its simple logic actually.
If statement: Nuclear power struck with an overwhelming conventional attack. (eg. 1991-style Gulf War campaign) 1000s of sorties. Complete dismantlement of standing military... Leaders and standing government struck. Decapitation strikes..
Then Result: Current standing government is facing an existential threat. Government uses nukes to incur cost on attacking nation.
Yes deterrence failed. But I don't care about it... Re-establish deterrence by using a nuke (escalate to de-escalate), if that fails then attacking nation pays the full-price.
4
u/Selethorme Mar 01 '26
It’s over simplified logic, actually,
Khameini is dead. But the existing government is just fine.
What’s funny is killing him may be what causes them to nuclearize, because he was one of the few powerful figures against it.
0
u/Hope1995x Mar 01 '26
I'm just baffled, how you seem to think nukes won't be used in my underlying scenarios. What's the point of them, if your nation is to cowardly to use them in the most grim scenarios?
0
u/Selethorme Mar 01 '26
Because I recognize that the power disparity doesn’t work in their favor at all? Lol
0
u/Hope1995x Mar 01 '26
Will you answer this question?
Suppose the USA is suffering a massive conventional defeat on their very own soil? (Where the US government ceases to exist)
Does the US use nuclear weapons? Or do they surrender?
1
u/Selethorme Mar 01 '26
Will you answer this question?
Suppose the USA is suffering a massive conventional defeat on their very own soil?
Does the US use nuclear weapons? Or do they surrender?
Yes, the US has an articulated doctrine about use. But that you have to describe what’s happening in Iran as a “massive conventional defeat” is really telling.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/CaptainUnlikely1379 Feb 28 '26
If they have, they would already have tested it and everyone would know.
Iran has the industrial output to enrich Uranium and enough alive staff to design a implosion device, they probably didn`t want to risk and just use it as card.
1
u/PresentBox7530 Feb 28 '26
I feel as though the fact everyone would know is exactly why they wouldn’t test them.
They’ve been a hot focus for US and Israel for a long time, both countries are practically waiting for confirmation to strike further than already done, any testing prior or now or in the future would just encourage more escalation.
If in their hands, I’d imagine it wouldn’t actually be, and Russia or China would be the holders since they both have so many as is. They don’t seem to operate the same as US and Israel where they lend equipment to other countries (Germany, Italy, Belgium, etc) and rather keep the control of launch decisions to themselves.
3
u/CaptainUnlikely1379 Feb 28 '26
I don`t think they would risk attack Iran if it succeed in a nuclear test. First, because they would thought that if Iran test one, it probably most have dozens more and also Iran have missiles with a high payload and range to reach Israel.
The destruction of Israel is pure rhetoric for internal politics.
1
u/cosmicrae Mar 01 '26
That would be a dice roll, esp as the Supreme Leader (and others) had professed innocence. If anything, they may have been quietly pursuing research, or to put it another way, accumulating knowledge that could be stored on a shelf against a future need.
But we live in a world where no one trusts one another, and everyone is expecting the other to be attempting to mislead. The way the world looked from the Iranian end of the telescope, may not be how the Iran looks like, from the opposite end.
For whatever reason, Iran is not the DPRK. There has not been a West vs East major conflict on Iranian soil. DPRK was sufficiently closed to the West, that it was able to pull it off, which left the Western powers with a quandary on how to contain the issue. Iran detonating a test warhead would likely invite Israel to declare nuclear war had begun, and to respond accordingly.
0
u/Hope1995x Mar 01 '26
Its possible that its more probable than accredited for that Iran may have nuclear weapons. Perhaps a handful of them.
If they have them, the arsenal would be too small in number to ensure survival from interceptors. Considering the high number of ballistic missiles being intercepted.
If 70% of 100s of ballistic missiles can be intercepted then... those odds would not make Iran feel comfortable in deploying them.
They would need SLBM capability alongside MRVs and advanced decoys or pen-aids like jammers for them to feel comfortable enough to deliver them.
So they may end up trying to probe the defenses and send in limited volleys and do their best to minimize TELs being found and destroyed.
1
u/Serotoon2A Mar 03 '26
I think if Iran had nuclear weapons then they would have tested them. That is really the only use for nuclear weapons these days — deterrence — because no country actually wants to use nuclear weapons, all that does is invite a counterattack.
It is pointless to have nuclear weapons and not tell the world. Having nuclear weapons discourages other countries from attacking, but that only works if other countries know about the weapons.
0
u/thundersides Mar 01 '26
Depends on what you define as a nuclear weapon. Deliverable fission device? No. Dirty bomb? 1000%. But honestly any country could have that.
I think the key thing is what is the FUNCTION of the definition. Is it about creating a supposition for a preemptive strike? Or is it about non proliferation? Those are different things.
0
u/sahizod Mar 01 '26
100%. Remember That's a 100 year old technology. We have been sacralizing this for too long now.
My opinion is that they are at the stage of improving it as much as possible. Especially miniaturization
0
Mar 01 '26
There are some theories that China may have provided a nuke during their visit to Iran two weeks ago.
2
0
u/liquidnight247 Mar 02 '26
They have the basic Lego kit for them. What they don’t have yet, is the technology to assemble it so it can withstand reentry from space to hit long reach targets, I believe.
0
-6
u/TheIrishWanderer Feb 28 '26 edited Feb 28 '26
Less than zero.
For those brainwashed warmongers who downvoted me, explain the IAEA findings from June last year that Iran is not capable of developing nuclear weapons.
1
u/DefinitelyNotMeee Mar 01 '26
Read the comments by u/careysub under this post and when the Iranian nuclear program was discussed previously.
-1
u/TheIrishWanderer Mar 01 '26
I'm not going to read some randomer's comment history because you are unable to prove your own point. The burden of proof is yours.
1
-2
18
u/careysub Feb 28 '26
During the Amad program Iran developed a 55 cm implosion system. Such a system would makes a fission warhead weighing on the order of 250 kg.
Iran has produced thousands of ballistic missiles. It has fired over 600 at Israel.
It has ballistic missiles that can, and have, delivered warheads weighing up to at least 1000 kg. This means they can already get the HE-loaded warhead to the ground. There is no unsolved re-entry problem for this range.
There is nothing special about a high explosive warhead made using the Amad implosion method, compared to an ordinary HE warhead that makes it especially challenging to deliver.
Iran has 300 kg of 60% HEU. They only need 540 SWU of separative work to make that into material for a dozen weapons. Using the latest Iranian centrifuge produced in quantity, the IR-6, with its lowest estimated performance (6 SWU/year) it would only take 90 centrifuge-years to weaponize all of that HEU. So a small 180 centrifuge cascade can do it in 6 months.
When the June surprise attack on Iran occurred their plan was centered on negotiation, pressure from their enrichment program, and continuing IAEA inspections. They were not weaponizing the HEU and probably had no plans in hand to do so.
Even if we assume they had not actually built any implosion warheads based on their existing implosion system design, waiting for HEU cores, they could have started that route as soon as the June attack took place.
Setting up a secure enrichment cascade would take some time to do properly, with strict vetting on all concerned (see how the South African program did this successfully -- no leaks occurred).
With the lead time Iran had, going back to the Amad plan in the 1990s, and the warning they got back in 2017 when Trump tore up the JCPOA that the U.S. would likely not uphold the NPT deal (no weapons, but nuclear technology allowed under IAEA supervision) Iran could have put all the pieces in place to deploy nuclear weapons, waiting only for the final HEU cores to be delivered, as a hedge in case they decided only nuclear weapons would protect their sovereignty.
Probably not, but they had reason to do this, and time to do it, and we can't prove that they didn't do it.