Post

@benrileysmith

@benrileysmith

More from @james_acton32

(((James Acton)))

Jul 9

🧵Introducing optimal deterrence.

Here's my proposed U.S. nuclear strategy for managing escalation, arms racing, and proliferation with two nuclear peers, published through @CFR_org.

Health warning: If you like counterforce, take a DEEP breath before reading on. (1/n)

The U.S. faces a security environment that's bad and getting worse. There's an emerging bipartisan consensus that, in response, the U.S. needs more nukes. The justification stems from the current policy of "counterforce" targeting. (2/n)

cfr.org/report/optimal…

The logic of counterforce targeting is merciless, however, and will catalyze an expensive, tension-generating, and futile three-ways arms race in which the United States will fail to achieve the nuclear superiority it seeks. (3/n)

Read 10 tweets

(((James Acton)))

@james_acton32

Jun 26

https://twitter.com/DNIGabbard/status/1937934899710710170

How effective were strikes against Iran?

U.S. and Israeli officials stress how long it would take Iran to rebuild its previous nuclear program.

But there's a MUCH more important issue: How long it would take Iran to get the bomb? For that, a small program would suffice. (1/n)

https://twitter.com/DNIGabbard/status/1937934899710710170

As in yesterday’s Axios article, these officials stress the damage done to Iran’s major declared facilities.

But the main issue isn't whether the U.S. & Israel severely damaged what they attacked; I'm sure they did. It's what they did NOT attack. (2/n)

axios.com/2025/06/25/ira…

I'm sure Israel did indeed destroy "several" centrifuge production lines.

But what about the stockpile of centrifuge components that Iran has ALREADY produced?

Israel has not claimed to have hit them--which suggests Iran could rebuild a new enrichment plant. (3/n)

Read 11 tweets

(((James Acton)))

@james_acton32

Jun 24

How far has military action set back Iran's nuclear program?

Netanyahu says 2-3 years.

JD Vance says "substantially."

In @politico, I argue that Iran could build the bomb in a year. And it now has much stronger reasons to do so. (1/n)

Iran still has its own nuclear triad: highly enriched uranium, centrifuge components, and expertise.

That's right.

A war waged nominally for nonproliferation has left Iran with several bombs worth of un-safeguarded highly enriched uranium. (2/n)

politico.com/news/magazine/…

IAEA DG @rafaelmgrossi has indicated, pretty explicitly, it was removed by Iran to locations unknown before the war began. (3/n)

iaea.org/newscenter/sta…

Read 7 tweets

(((James Acton)))

@james_acton32

Jun 17

The claim that Iran had 60 days to make a deal is disingenuous since the United States was hardly ready, and did not conduct, an intensive, detailed negotiation. (1/n)

For example, there were times when Iran was willing to talk but the United States wasn't (presumably because it needed more time to prepare).

reuters.com/world/middle-e…

For some time, the United States seemed to vacillate on whether it would be prepared to sign a deal that allowed any enrichment in Iran. (3/n)

thehill.com/homenews/admin…

Read 5 tweets

(((James Acton)))

@james_acton32

Jun 16

🧵The stated goal of Israel’s military campaign is to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. With operations ongoing, it's too early to reach a conclusion.

But I can highlight outstanding questions that will determine whether Israel will achieve its nuclear goal. (1/n)

Let's focus on three areas:
👉Fordow
👉Enriched uranium stockpile
👉Centrifuge components

BLUF: As of now, key facilities, material, and equipment are--or are likely--intact.

CAVEAT: The situation is fluid and uncertain. (2/n)

FORDOW is an enrichment plant buried in a mountain. While there are reports of some strikes against the facility, IAEA DG @rafaelmgrossi reports this morning that no damage is visible. (3/n)

iaea.org/newscenter/sta…

Read 14 tweets

(((James Acton)))

@james_acton32

Sep 25, 2024

🧵Initial thoughts on Russia's new nuclear doctrine, based on a machine translation of Putin's comments. (I have not seen the doctrine yet; my assessment may change when I do).

BLUF: It's not tied as directly to the Ukraine war as others think. (1/n)

kremlin.ru/events/preside…

Here's the key passage (thanks, @ChatGPTapp).

(2/n)

@ChatGPTapp As has been reported, Putin is saying he might use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapon state that attacked Russia in concert with a nuclear-weapon state.

This mirror U.S. declaratory policy until 2009 (I think), which contained a similar provision. (3/n)

Read 13 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

(((James Acton)))

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @james_acton32

(((James Acton)))

(((James Acton)))

(((James Acton)))

(((James Acton)))

(((James Acton)))

(((James Acton)))

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!

Become Premium to read this thread!