Kinetically, i.e. with a missile/bomb of some sort.
Clarification: A nuclear site is any Iranian facility used for the development, enrichment, storage, or processing of nuclear material or technology, including reactors, enrichment facilities, uranium mines, and research centers located on Iranian soil.
1,000
3.00Parchin is not a nuclear facility.
The work that was alleged to have happened in Parchin up to 2003 is regarding nuclear detonators. Despite the name, nuclear detonators are NOT nuclear technology. They direct energy from a CONVENTIONAL explosion to generate enough pressure for a nuclear reaction. So the work itself does not involve fissile material, nuclear energy, nuclear reactions or anything of that sort. The fissile material is brought in only when a nuclear bomb is actually tested, which Iran has never done.
The IAEA has additionally examined the site and found no evidence of fissile material. Of course, some claimed this was due to sanitization efforts. However, it is extremely difficult to remove all trace radiation from a site that handled fissile material.
@CraigDemel does it? What about hitting a hanger for planes that could carry nuclear weapons? Or car factories for the trucks that carry the materials around?
@capybara the trucks can move anything else and hangars can arguably hold other kinds of aircraft. However the implosion devices can only be used in nukes. You wouldn't put one into a toaster oven.
@ICRainbow I read some other comments and your reply. I changed my mind and am not against the resolution to Yes.
I believe the Axios report is sufficient to resolve the market to Yes. Barak Ravid is as good as it gets reporting on the middle east, and his article is clear:
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/15/iran-israel-destroyed-active-nuclear-weapons-research-facility
The Israeli attack on Iran in late October destroyed an active top secret nuclear weapons research facility in Parchin, according to three U.S. officials, one current Israeli official and one former Israeli official.
I will resolve the market to yes in 24 hours barring any countervailing information coming out.
@SemioticRivalry There's no rush. Personally, I'd wait a week or two for the dust to settle, and reassess. I haven't bet in this market.
@SemioticRivalry Barak Ravid is hardly impartial when it comes to Israel. He might very well be correct, but as a non-invested bystander, I’d rather have more confirmation than the word of an ex-8200 member.
@Judd see isw, probably the best source for war info
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-november-15-2024
@SemioticRivalry I don't see a strong reason to not resolve or extend the 24 hour waiting period.
Lack of sources. It's a scoop, which, by definition, is an exclusive news piece hence the lack of other reporting - this is generally how news like this gets reported on for a lot of Israeli activities. Also: simple google search reveals that the Telegraph has an article that was posted 19 hours ago which suggests they have done their due diligence and verified the article.
Article has factual information from both Israeli and US officials.
Biased reporting. He is an Israeli and an ex-IDF member yet his Wikipedia page states:
"In September 2014, Ravid came out against 43 fellow reservists of Unit 8200 who publicly refused "to take part in actions against Palestinians and refuse to serve as tools in deepening the military control over the Occupied Territories"."". Also, if I'm not mistaken, he's part of the anti-Netanyahu crowd.
@SemioticRivalry I keep getting burnt because what seems to me like the obvious interpretation of the question is totally changed by the fine print. I would have expected this to resolve yes if a place from which Iran can launch nuclear strikes was hit, not a research facility. My bad, of course, but it's really frustrating.
@WilliamGunn it's one of the biggest challenges with this site, and one reason I personally don't support the "scroll and bet based on titles" behavior Manifold's UI is designed to facilitate. In this case IMO the title was ambiguous, so the clarification in the description is fair game - but I can definitely see how someone would've had a different interpretation and been burned as you were (even as someone who personally thinks YES was the right resolution here).
I'm just being a sore loser but
The facility was part of the Iranian Amad nuclear weapons program until Iran halted its military nuclear program in 2003. It was used for testing explosives needed to set off a nuclear device, according to the Institute for Science and International Security.
Is that "nuclear material or technology"?
@FergusArgyll yeah but the article shows that the status quo has changed: previoiusly it was believed that the facility was producing conventional weaponry – presumably why this market didn't intially resolve to Yes – which had potential to be applicable to development of nuclear weapons, but now both the US and Israel believe the facility is developing weaponry / technology specifically for nuclear weapon development hence the clandestine nature of the facility.
@FergusArgyll iirc, designing a detonation that can trigger a nuclear chain reaction in a bomb was a key challenge during the Manhattan project. Not going to argue this either way since it's such a grey area wrt what I would take to be the spirit of this market.