The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
There's only ever really been one "secret" about any nuclear weapon design
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 14th, 2026 6:42 PM Author: Jared Baumeister The precise configuration on the explosive lens, which is analogous to camera lens designs by Zeiss or Leica. Everyone knows how the bombs work, but in order to make one you have operate on the level of a high end optics company like that. If Iran has a an explosive lens pre-fabricated, then it's always going to be "2 weeks away from having a nuke." Netanyahu himself seemed confident their explosive lens worked and why wouldn't it? It was likely borrowed from North Korea. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845646&forum_id=2).#49743854) |
Date: March 14th, 2026 7:04 PM Author: peeface iran has no plutonium and just 60% uranium, so anything they are building wouldn't need lenses. it would be a giant and inefficient gun style bomb. they'd be better off just using conventional explosives.
|
 |
Date: March 15th, 2026 3:15 PM Author: Jared Baumeister https://i.imgur.com/gbNg5A1.jpeg (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845646&forum_id=2).#49745803) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2026 3:42 PM Author: peeface yes, as i said they are terribly inefficient. but when you have no plutonium and barely enriched uranium... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845646&forum_id=2).#49745882) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2026 3:46 PM Author: Jared Baumeister Plutonium is not necessary in order for explosive lenses to be necessary. And I'm sure Iran wants big yields, not Fat Man-level shityields (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845646&forum_id=2).#49745888) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2026 3:54 PM Author: a lifetime spent arguing with autistic men online plutonium is more efficient but gun-style bombs are much easier and more reliable. obviously you want plutonium for warheads on missiles but gun-style bombs are still destructive and idiot proof. noone even had to run tests on little boy before dropping it on hiroshima because they knew it'd work (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845646&forum_id=2).#49745907) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2026 3:55 PM Author: Jared Baumeister No one is making a gun-style bomb in 2026 lol. These people like to show off their technological sophistication, not like Congolese engineers (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845646&forum_id=2).#49745908) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2026 3:57 PM Author: a lifetime spent arguing with autistic men online if you are Iran and just looking for a seat at the nuclear table than why not? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845646&forum_id=2).#49745914) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2026 4:03 PM Author: Jared Baumeister Making gun-style devices is an admission that you can't make anything else. Imagine unveiling a new "fighter jet" but it's a prop plane (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845646&forum_id=2).#49745927) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2026 4:23 PM Author: peeface it's almost like they had no intention of ever making a nuclear weapon at all.
|
|
Date: March 15th, 2026 3:50 PM Author: a lifetime spent arguing with autistic men online No the bottleneck isn't any "secret tech". The bottleneck has always been industrial persistence and its impossible to run the operation without competing nations finding out now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5845646&forum_id=2).#49745898) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2026 3:58 PM Author: Jared Baumeister I didn't say "the biggest bottleneck," I said the biggest SECRET. Everyone knows the TVA was created to supply all that juice to the Manhattan Project, just like we know Iran used oil and gas to power its centrifuges (since it couldn't sell it due to sanctions).
None of that is secret. To the contrary it's a baked-in assumption that you need a LOT of electricity to enrich uranium |