Why Iran couldn't develop a nuke in less than years even before its program was obliterated - and few know that Iran votes every year for a nuclear weapons free Middle East
Witkoff talked about how Iran could build a nuke in weeks. This is another example of his lack of technical expertise on nukes
[Skip to Contents]
Witkoff: And it takes them at most a week to 10 days. On the 60, that's 11 bombs.
[THIS IS NOT BOMBS, IT IS ENRICHED URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE GAS]
And on the 20, which is another thousand kilograms, it takes them maybe a month or a month and a half. And that, that would add what, another 25 bombs?
[AGAIN, IT’S JUST ENRICHED URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE GAS]
Imagine them being able to break out that fast because no one was really paying attention to what they were doing.
[THEY CAN’T AND THE IEA WAS VERY CLEAR ON THIS]
In effect. And in effect, by the way, the IEA couldn't, could. Wasn't able to pay attention for the last 10 or 11 months because they cut them out.
[THE IEA SAYS THAT THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM IS OBLITERATED AND IRAN DOESN’T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGICAL ABILITY TO DO MUCH AT ALL RIGHT NOW]
https://pod.wave.co/podcast/mark-levin-podcast/3326-the-truth-behind-irans-nuclear-ambitions
All Iran has is
60% enriched Uranium hexafluoride gas
They kept 2 weeks away from 90% enrichment for several years and nothing to suggest they even had a project to try to enrich it further or to turn it into the metal.
From examples of other countries like NK it is likely a year to the first test which usually is a fizzle, not all the bomb explodes and several years to get a reproducible controlled explosion and miniaturize it to fit it in a missile.
The US obliterated their nuclear program in June 2025 and they don’t seem to have done much to rebuild it
[We see this also in the US strikes, no longer targeting their sites in Natanz, Isfahan or Fordow but instead focusing on Iran’s airforce, navy, missiles, air defences and the IRGC facilities so they didn’t start this war to attack any nuclear sites]
Contents
Iran’s nuclear program was already obliterated in June 2025 according to the IAEA
It is not easy to turn highly enriched uranium into a nuke - first attempts fizzle
Will it end soon? Hard to say but many pressures on Trump to stop it
Iran’s nuclear program was already obliterated in June 2025 according to the IAEA
Transcript of BBC interview with director of the IAEA.
TRANSCRIPT
Q. What was the status of the Iranian nucler program after those attacks last year? What were you able to discern about what was left if anything?
A. Well what is clear is that the damage was consequential. There was a lot of damage, very severe. And in our estimation quite important in the sense that most of the facilities that were targeted would be out of operation or in a very difficult state or challenge. We have not been able to return. Our inspectors have not been able to return physically to those three sites in particular Natanz, Isfahan Fordow. But we have an important amount of information.
Some talk about obliteration, others destruction. At the end of the day it is a very considerable degree of degradation and destruction of all those facilities. But not everything of course. There were some buildings that ere not affected. So it is a mixed picture.
Q. And in the last almost a year, nine months or so, have you been able to work out how much Iran has managed to rebuild because the US said it was trying to get that program back again. As you said the inspectors are not in the country at the moment so I know you are having to use different methods to try to work that out but do you see that Iran had managed to regain some of tha tcapacity.
A; Well not in an important degree I would say Of course we are monitoring these places we have been inspecting other places in Iran, not these three sites , other places in Iran and we are following what is happneining in these three sites and we are not seeing major movement that would indicate that there is an important effort of reconstruction.
There might be something There might be things done in other places. But nothing major.
I can’t provide a link to the video as it was on the TV. I recorded it and transcribed it but don’t have permission to upload the video.
US is not actually targeting nuclear sites, this time - nothing to do with the nuclear program
Also the US doesnt seem to be bombing nuclear sites in Iran this time around. The strikes don’t seem to be to do with the nuclear program from the IAEA observations.
QUOTE STARTS
The regional safety monitoring network has been put on alert and is liaising with us continuously. So far, no elevation of radiation levels above the usual background levels has been detected in countries bordering Iran.
Regarding the status of the nuclear installations in Iran, up to now, we have no indication that any of the nuclear installations, including the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, the Tehran Research Reactor or other nuclear fuel cycle facilities have been damaged or hit.
…
As you know, I have been closely involved in supporting efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the impasse around Iran’s nuclear program. I was invited by the negotiators to the two most recent rounds of consultations in Geneva, to which I brought the IAEA’s technical and impartial advice.
An understanding eluded the parties this time. I am sure we are, quite understandably, feeling a strong sense of frustration.
The use of force has been present in international relations since times immemorial. This is a reality. But it is always the least preferred option.
I remain convinced that the lasting solution to this long-existing discord lies on the diplomatic table. The IAEA will be there, ready to play its indispensable part, whenever and wherever it is called.
When it comes to nuclear matters, a crystal clear understanding of the scope and verifiability of an agreement is of the essence.
Diplomacy is hard, but it is never impossible. Nuclear diplomacy is even harder, but it is never impossible.
It is not a matter of if, but of when, we will again gather at that diplomatic table – we simply must do so as quickly as possible.
…
Let me underline that the situation today is very concerning. We cannot rule out a possible radiological release with serious consequences, including the necessity to evacuate areas as large or larger than major cities. What I can assure you is that the IAEA is there, working with its Member States, and keeping the international community informed while being ready to react immediately if a breach in nuclear safety occurs.
Not a week away from a nuke - a week away from highly enriched uranium hexafluoride gas - very hard to work with - and been a week away from it for years - no interest in taking that last step - and ability to do it also destroyed
The claim that they were a week away from a nuke is very misleading. They have enough uranium gas (technically uranium hexafluoride). It is very poisonous because of the fluorine and dangerous to work with. The US destroyed the facilities that Iran had for dealing with this gasified uranium. So they likely have big canisters of it with enough gas to turn into enough nuclear material to make several nukes buried in some tunnel somewhere.
However they likely don’t have the equipment to turn it into solid uranium. That was destroyed with Tomahawks last summer.
When Israel claims that Iran has enough nuclear material to make 9 nukes https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-june-12-2025/ - this material is in the form of uranium hexafluoride gas.
Iran CANNOT make nukes in days. All it used to be able to do in days is to enrich it to the point where it has enough slightly radioactive uranium hexafluoride gas for 9 nukes. But it kept it at 60% enrichment for years and never did the easy extra step to enrich t the 90% needed for nukes.
Iran’s nuclear material is just in the form of a very hot heavy gas that turns solid when cool
Their nuclear material is in the form of a gas called Uranium hexafluoride which turns solid when cooled to below 56.5 C.
This photo shows a vial of Uranium hexafluoride gas turning solid as it cools.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride#Physical_properties
Iran’s uranium hexafluoride is 60% enriched with Uranium 238. They could turn it into weapons grade Uranium Hexafluoride in a week using centrifuges. But that is NOT A NUKE. You can’t make a nuke from uranium hexafluoride.
The gas itself isn’t even very radioactive. Not like e.g. cobalt 60 (used as an ionizing radiation source and dangerous to handle). You could hold it in your hands for hours and not be at significant risk.
What is special is it can sustain a chain reaction - if you get enough of it and compress it quickly then it will do a runaway reaction, turn very radioactive and explode. But you can’t compress it enough quickly enough to do that as a gas.
Here Elina Charatsidou a Ukrainian nuclear physicist handles natural uranium and nuclear fuel pellets with no special precautions. The fuel pellets have a few % of uranium 235. Her gloves are mainly to protect the pellets not her. Your skin can block out the alpha particles from even highly enriched uranium or plutonium and even a thin sheet of paper can stop them.
Queen Elizabeth was handed plutonium in a bag in 1935 and was invited to feel how warm it was. It was plated in gold. In 1945 Philip Morrison drove 210 miles with enough plutonium for the Trinity test explosion in two hemispheres on his lap and he lived to a very old age too.
QUOTE STARTS
On Thursday 12 July 1945 a US Army sedan drove Philip Morrison the 210 miles from Los Alamos to Alamagordo with the plutonium core of the world’s first nuclear weapon on his lap. At dawn four days later the priceless hemispheres the physicist had helped forge, then assembled, vanished in the highly successful Trinity nuclear test. The scientists who witnessed the test estimated the energy released equivalent to 18,600t of TNT.
,,,,
Morrison, like many intimately involved in the debut of this new metal, lived to a ripe old age. He died earlier this year, aged 89. Hans Bethe, who led the physicists who had conceived the new weapon, died in March, aged 98. Glenn Seaborg, the radiochemist who discovered plutonium in 1941 and wrote the rules for working with it, lived to 87. Edward Teller, who used plutonium to trigger a thermonuclear reaction for his H-bomb, died aged 94.
So prevalent was this mythology by 1977 that Mr Justice Parker, inspector at the Windscale Inquiry into an expansion of plutonium separation in the UK, listed seven “misunderstandings” in his report. Some prevail to this day.
As the late John Fremlin, professor of radioactivity at Birmingham University, famously advised that public inquiry, plutonium can be sat upon safely by someone wearing only a stout pair of jeans.
At Harwell in the 1950s the newly-crowned Queen Elizabeth was handed a lump of plutonium in a plastic bag and invited to feel how warm it was. Morrison had been protected from alpha rays from his hemispheres by nickel plating. The Aldermaston scientists used gold foil.
https://www.neimagazine.com/uncategorized/the-drama-of-plutonium/?cf-view
It also produces a small amount of gamma radiation (penetrating light, like X rays but more energetic) and beta radiation (electrons) and a small number of neutrons (whch are what sustain the chain reaction in a bomb)
Nukes far less destructive than most realize - was one nuke going off somewhere in the world every week when I was a teenager
And nukes are likely far less destructive than you realize. When I was a teenager, someone was exploding a test nuke somewhere in the world roughly once every week.
The airbursts especially don’t even leave much radioactivity, especially hydrogen bombs. The biggest nuclear bomb ever exploded produced so little radioactivity, as an air burst hydrogen bomb, that they had technicians safely visiting the site of the explosion 2 hours later.
No possibility of hidden nuclear tests - CBTO would spot them instantly
There is no way that Iran has done any tests yet.
... the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO), a global sentinel whose mission is as critical as it is clear: to ensure no nuclear test explosion goes undetected, anywhere, anytime.
It is not easy to turn highly enriched uranium into a nuke - first attempts fizzle
And a big chunk of solid enriched uranium is NOT a nuke. If you get enough of it together to start a nuclear reaction, that much is easy. But all that happens is that it melts and sinks into the ground, mixes with the concrete or whatever you have and creates a right mess.
To make an explosion you have to take just the right amount of uranium and compress it together very suddenly and then contain it for long enough so that it explodes and without melting first. This is technically difficult to do and from experience with countries developing nukes for the first time takes about a year. That is even with all the open source information. The details you need are secret.
Israel went all the way to nukes that you can put in a missile without any tests. But that’s because it got the top secret results of all their tests from its European allies.
Without that secret information, it takes several tests before you have a working nuke.
It’s not going to happen but lets look at the timeline if a country like Iran was to develop its own independent nuclear deterrent without using any other country’s test data.
The earliest test is likely to be a “fizzle” similar to North Korea’s first test
In this diagram the blue is the uranium and the red is the part that detonates. When the two chunks are brought together if they aren’t brought together fast enough or stay together firmly enough for long enough then just the part in contact starts to explode but it blows the two chunks apart and you end up just scattering highly enriched uranium over a large area.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
First nuclear test is likely to be a “fizzle”
Chain reaction only in areas marked in yellow and red
Explosion is quickly self-extinquishing blowing the rest of the uranium apart
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nuclear_predetonation.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzle_(nuclear_explosion)
So we can look at North Korea’s timeline to get an idea. Its first test in
2006, 0.7 kilotons, likely a fizzle
2009, 5.4 kt (compare Hiroshima 16 kt and Nagasaki 21 kt)
2013. 6 - 16 kt
2016, 7 - 16.5 kt
2016, 15 - 25 kt, first NK nuke that they claimed can fit in a missile.
2017, 70 - 280 kt
North Korea wasn’t being bombed during its nuclear program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea
That then is a nuke that you can explode in your own country but can’t put in a missile. You can make a bomb that you can carry in a heavy bomber not that long after the first tests like the two bombs the US dropped.
But to make one that fits in a modern missile takes another two or three years.
Iran hasn’t started this process. It would need to do nuclear tests first, it’s certainly not done that. We have methods that can detect underground nuclear tests very sensitively.
But Iran also had nuclear inspections until recently throughout the JCPOA and even for a while after the US withdrew.
Then after that the Americans destroyed their facilities and Israel has very good intelligence about Iran and sabotaged many things.
IRAN AS LONG TERM ADVOCATES FOR A MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR WEAPON FREE ZONE - IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE IRANIAN PERSPECTIVE
But in addition Iran are strongly in favour of a Middle East nuclear weapon free zone and have tried to get one established since 1974, so they are not likely to rush to make nukes especially since their arch rival Saudi Arabia would beat them to it, would be able to make one within weeks when it would take them two years. Saudi Arabia doesn’t want a nuke either - Saudi Arabia supports the Treaty on total prohibition of nukes.
It’s important to understand how they themselves think about it before leaping to conclusions that they want to rush into making a nuke - that is very far from the truth, it would not beneift them to have nukes. It would go against their long term goals for the middle East. It wants to pressurize Israel to give up on nukes. Actually developing nukes themsleves, if they go all the way until they have them, is not going to help there.
This is the perspective of Iran’s permanent representative to the UN, who was also involved in negotiating the Iran deal,
Ravanchi: Iran was the first country back in 1974 to initiate a resolution in the United Nations General Assembly calling for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. Iran has also been observing its International obligations based on the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty), so Iran is in good standing in terms of its respect for international law. We are going to have the opportunity in January 2021 to discuss different aspects of the NPT within the review mechanism. Definitely, Iran and other non-nuclear-weapon states will stress the fact that nuclear-weapon states have not been up to their obligations based on the relevant provision of the NPT.
Another point is in regard to the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone and free from other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. As you know for the last couple of years, the UN General Assembly has been seized of this matter. Last year we had the first conference on this important issue. But unfortunately, Israel, with a known stockpile of nuclear warheads, has not shown any interest to join the effort to establish a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. I believe the next NPT review conference is also a good opportunity for all member states to call on the Israeli regime to join others in putting all of their unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under the supervision of the IAEA.
Israel has a policy of not saying that they have nukes, even though everyone knows they do, and their nukes are not under the supervision of the IAEA - nobody else is inspecting them.
From the 1980s onwards details emerged of the Israeli nuclear program. Israel developed their nukes with the help of Europe (France and the UK also some help from Norway and probably had direct access to the data on the French nuclear tests) and as a result never had to test them - though there is some suspicion that a nuke that was exploded by South Africa may have been an Israeli test as it seemed to be beyond the capabilites of the South Africans who only developed a few large nukes, relatively crude, before eventually going nuclear free.
This Vela test seems to have been a rather clean miniaturized nuke fired from an artillery shell. It is not easy to miniaturize a nuke to the extent that it fits inside an artillery shell and it should have been well beyond South Africa’s capability - so ths may be a clandestine Israeli test
For more about all this background, Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia
Iran want the Israeli nuclear program to be inspected by the IAEA inspectors so that the world knows what they have.
. Explaining Iran’s Nuclear Position: An Interview With Iranian Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi
Saudi Arabia - would get a nuke easily - Saudi Arabia want a nuclear weapon free world but would build nukes in response if Iran did
It is not at all certain they will want to make a nuke. After all as soon as they start developing a nuclear bomb their Middle East rival / enemy Saudi Arabia will too and then it is much harder to achieve the Iranian long term goal of a Middle East nuclear weapons free zone if it is achievable at all
Saudi Arabia can make nukes quickly through its connections with Pakistan whose nuclera program they financed can probably make its first nuclear bomb in a few weeks and would easily beat Iran on this Iran doesn’t want this to happen.
Saudi Arabia doesn’t want nukes either. It supports the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. But it hasn’t signed and ratified it presumably because of Iran.
. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
Will it end soon? Hard to say but many pressures on Trump to stop it
Trump keeps changing his message.
But he often suggests a short war and combining that with
Oil prices pressure and the oil reserves release
possible sea mines,
And also pressure from
European countries that are usually allies of the US
Arab states in the region
Just about everyone else except Isarel
Growing opposition in the American public and Congress
I wouldn’t be surprised if he does end it soon. I don’t want to predict anything about how long it lasts.
One way or another it will end. Then the long process of trying to get back to the deal they had before it started that would prevent Iran from ever developing nukes again.
But whenever it does end they do have an excellent deal to return to. And it will take a lot of “smoothing of ruffled feathers” to get back to a deal but it will likely be even stronger as a result.
See my:
Also:
UPDATE: Positive developments
The main good news is that
Trump says the war will end “very soon” though not over this week (“this week” means the week starting Sunday 8 March 2026)
Thank you, Mr. President. On Iran, you called it an excursion. You said it would be over soon. Are you thinking this week it will be over?
No, but soon.
The main good news is that
the Iranians are getting less and less able to fire missiles out of Iran. It’s stabailized at a bit over 100 drones a day but only 10 missiles a day.
QUOTE An Israeli journalist reported on March 7 that Israel estimates that Iran has about 120 missile launchers remaining. CENTCOM stated on March 5 that ballistic missile attacks from Iran have declined by roughly 90 percent since the strikes began.
From:
ISW is posting updated figures every day at:
The ballistic missiles are way down, last few days, down to 3 on the 4th March. Slowly increased since then to 16.
But those are numbers that the US / Israel can easily shoot down. And each time they launch one, it betrays another of their launchers for ballistic missiles.
Iran has
about 120 launchers left.
It can’t replicate its day 1 strikes even if they used all of them at once (which they won’t want to do as that would betray their positions and with the US / Israel having air control mean they can all or almost all be destroyed)
The shahed drones are harder to stop because they can be launched even from a van. But Ukraine is coming to the rescue with its $1000 Shahed interceptors. Since the targets are US bases if each base has a bunch of interceptors it can stop the drones far easier to stop than for Ukraine where the traget is the entire country.
You’d never guess all this from the mainstream media.
the US can continue to shoot down the drones, the issue is the cost
Ukraine is working on supplying very low cost interceptors to the US - it’s lowest cost solution is $1000 to destroy a $30,000 drone while missiles fired by fighter jets or patriots are more like $1 million + to shoot down a $30,000 drone
Ukraine is working on supplying very low cost interceptors to the US - it’s lowest cost solution is $1000 to destroy a $30,000 drone while missiles fired by fighter jets or patriots are more like $1 million + to shoot down a $30,000 drone. See my 1960s LOD Ukraine update under:
for now at least their president is in charge and he is a moderate / liberal in their politics
their president apologized to his Arab neighbours for the mistakes hitting civilian targets in their countries.
See also - why the war is likely short and can’t be a world war
CONTACT ME VIA ddebunked.org OR EMAIL
You can Direct Message me on Substack - but I check this rarely. Better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
OR contact me at our new forum
https://ddebunked.org
Please do NOT Direct Message me on Facebook any more unless you are already in contact with me.
If already in contact on FB then please understand if I don’t reply for a while except to very urgent messages
Try email or other ways to talk to me until this is sorted out.
For now I only want to talk on FB about how to message me somewhere else.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our forum which is set up for voluntary fact checking.
The forum itself is here:
Also do join our forum if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
Alternatively you can post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
However I am not able to comment or post there at present because
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search. Try different terms e.g. Russia, Putin etc as it only searches the title.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our Facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
I often write them up as “short debunks”
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.
I go through phases when I do lots of short debunks. Recently, I’ve taken to converting comments in the group into posts in the group that resemble short debunks and most of those haven’t yet been copied over to the wiki.
TIPS FOR DEALING WITH DOOMSDAY FEARS
If suicidal or helping someone suicidal see my:
BLOG: Supporting someone who is suicidal
If you have got scared by any of this, health professionals can help. Many of those affected do get help and find it makes a big difference.
They can’t do fact-checking, don’t expect that of them. But they can do a huge amount to help with the panic, anxiety, maladaptive responses to fear and so on.
Also do remember that therapy is not like physical medicine. The only way a therapist can diagnose or indeed treat you is by talking to you and listening to you. If this dialogue isn’t working for whatever reason, do remember you can always ask to change to another therapist and it doesn’t reflect badly on your current therapist to do this.
Also check out my Seven tips for dealing with doomsday fears based on things that help those scared, including a section about ways that health professionals can help you.
I know that sadly many of the people we help can’t access therapy for one reason or another - usually long waiting lists or the costs.
There is much you can do to help yourself. As well as those seven tips, see my:
BLOG: Breathe in and out slowly and deeply and other ways to calm a panic attack
BLOG: Tips from CBT
— might help some of you to deal with doomsday anxieties
PLEASE DON’T COMMENT HERE WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER TOPICS - INSTEAD JOIN OUR NEW FORUM ddebunked.org
PLEASE DON’T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:
INSTEAD PLEASE COMMENT IN OUR NEW FORUM HERE:
It’s just a forum not social media. No age verification. Set up by myself with free open source software Flarum.
For details:
If you have any issues joining it do let me know.
Why I ask you to post to our forum with anything scary off topic instead of here
The reason I ask you to post there instead of comment with your concerns about unrelated topics here is that I often can’t respond to comments here for some time. The unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even an answered comment may scare them because they see the comment before my reply.
Do comment here with anything that is on topic for this post, E.g. if you spot any mistakes however small please let me know.
Also, though your first comment should be on topic, it is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here in a natural way if that is how the conversation develops.
This is specifically about off topic comments here hat might scare people on a different topic.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
PLEASE DON’T COMMENT ON THIS POST WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC
Also please check the purpose of this substack - to help people scared of many things. Welcome:
- questions if you are still scared and need help
- fact checks if I got anything wrong however small
- help with debunking
Please don't post potentially scary things here unless you are yourself scared and needing help.
FOR POTENTIAL SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER TOPICS YOU WANT DEBUNKED - PLEASE COMMENT IN OUR NEW FORUM HERE
https://ddebunked.org
There are many there who can answer you not just me. And it is setup for voluntary fact checking and far easier to use than comments here
https://ddebunked.org
It’s just a forum not social media. No age verification. Set up by myself with free open source software Flarum.
For details see my:
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/our-own-new-discussion-forum-for
We only need your user name and email address to join and the email address is just for notifications, we don't look at it (unless needed to help you or for debugging) or share with anyone.
If you have any issues joining it do let me know.
The planet is overpopulated. There's not enough fresh water for everyone. Desalinating seawater will only help cities near the sea. So the one-family-three-child program should have been introduced in the 1970s. This would also solve the problem of refugees and immigrants. Iran, Central Asia, African countries, and Pakistan suffer from a shortage of fresh water. And a shortage of fresh water will slow down national economies and human progress. In short, Malthus was probably right that overpopulation is the main threat to civilization.