FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
As with Russia's aggression against Ukraine and the involvement, in that case, of civilian nuclear power plants in Zaporizhzhia and the ghost plant of Chernobyl, the rapid escalation of attacks and military options in Iran has rekindled an alarm that we thought was buried deep in our subconscious Cold War fears.
What would happen if Israeli bombs hit the enriched uranium depots (as we will see at various levels)? Is there really a possibility of causing the phenomenon of atomic fission and consequently a nuclear explosion?
The scenario becomes even more unclear in the event of the use of the GBU-57, the so-called "anti-bunker" bomb, which must be supplied by US military forces and would therefore require the approval of US President Donald Trump for at least indirect involvement.
As in previous cases, there is no “literature” or documented cases that can be taken as a precise reference, so we have to go with hypotheses. The oldest uranium enrichment site in Iran is that of Natanz, 220 kilometers southeast of Tehran, protected by an anti-aircraft battery. Natanz is the largest facility in Iran and it is there that most of the uranium enrichment centrifuges are “hidden” (estimated at around 10 thousand). The word “hidden” is in quotation marks because the presence of this facility has been discovered for many years and because most of these centrifuges enrich uranium up to 5%, which is considered a level suitable for civilian purposes, i.e. for use in power generation plants like those in Ukraine.
Natanz was already hit in the first days of the Israeli attacks, so we already know from the IAEA headed by Rafael Grossi that there was no emergency in terms of possible radiation. Moreover, Grossi's number two is an Italian, Massimo Aparo, considered one of the world's leading experts on the Iranian nuclear file.
It is possible that the attacks would have damaged the centrifuges anyway, which are very sensitive to vibrations (especially if they were operating at the time), so the bombs could have "reached" and damaged them even from a distance. The lack of power after the attack could also have damaged these enrichment plants.
But let's come to the most important question: if a fire starts on uranium, is there a risk of a nuclear reaction?
Anyone who lived through the Chernobyl explosion in 1986 cannot forget that both elements were present in that case: the instability of the uranium nucleus and the explosion that then released radionuclides into the atmosphere, leaving them at the mercy of the winds. This was the infamous “atomic cloud”, all the more dangerous because it could move.
In reality, technically an “atomic bomb,” as the late Frederick Forsyth, a beloved writer on intelligence and wanted men, often explained in detail, is a set of components. And this is perhaps the most delicate aspect of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s accusation: was Iran working on a bomb? It would require not only enriched uranium, but also a detonator (which is not at all easy to build), as well as missiles and suitable launch pads. Although it cannot be denied that a black market could be created or recreated with Russia in conditions of great economic uncertainty and with nuclear stockpiles no longer financed by the US (for years the US paid for the security of the former USSR’s nuclear weapons, to avoid radiological danger and to prevent illicit markets).
So, for a nuclear fission reaction to occur, several specific conditions must be created, all at once. The greatest danger in a case like the Natanz bombing is more the chemical reaction than the one that releases radionuclides.
Uranium itself is not toxic to health. It is found in nature and everything depends on exposure. The most dangerous is the chemical reaction with fluorine that is used during the enrichment process and that turns uranium into a gas, therefore mobile and aggressive. Here too, fluorine in small quantities is also found in toothpaste, because it is beneficial for the teeth. But above a certain dose it can be deadly if inhaled and very aggressive for the skin.
There may, therefore, be local effects around the struck object.
The second uranium enrichment site (it was recently revealed that Iran may have a third) is Fordow, 100 kilometers southwest of Tehran. There, according to the IAEA, there are fewer centrifuges there, but they are more powerful. Uranium enrichment reaches a level of 60%, very close to the 90% level considered suitable for military use. This is why the IAEA published a report expressing clear concern that Iran was working, at least in the future, on nuclear weapons. Otherwise, there would be no reason to have these centrifuges. Although, as mentioned earlier, having the real capacity to produce an atomic bomb and launch it is another matter.
This is the object that the Israeli arsenal cannot reach without special American bombs.
In 2023, an alert was issued after Russian forces struck a depleted uranium weapons depot in Ukraine. Even then, there were fears of a toxic cloud, but the measuring station in Trieste (then aligned with the winds coming from Ukraine) reported nothing.
One final question remains: what would happen if GBU-57 bombs repeatedly and deeply (this is the method of attack) hit the facility at Fordow?
We really have no precedent. To give an answer, we need to know precisely the amount of uranium stored at that Iranian facility. The hypothesis is that the amount is not enough to cause major concern. But the final answer is in the hands of American and Israeli intelligence.
Lini një Përgjigje