If Iran had no intention of developing nuclear weapons, why was it enriching uranium at 60 percent when only 5 percent is required for civilian use (electricity generation)?

You don't wait until AFTER they develop one, or the world ends up with a North Korea situation when it is too late.

Once a nation has them, they have them.

You don't wait until the first nuclear test happens, it is too late.

The IAEA the other day said Iran was enriching uranium at 60 percent, which is well above the 5 percent level required for a nuclear power reactor.

MattE wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2025 at 3:19pm:


Can you explain why Israel refuses to be a part of the NPT?

freediver wrote on Jun 24^th, 2025 at 8:00am:


The term "imminent" in the context of nuclear weapons is intentionally vague and lacks a precise, universally agreed-upon definition. It's a subjective judgment, often based on a combination of factors and assessments, including the readiness of nuclear forces, political tensions, and intelligence information. However, it generally signifies a high probability of imminent use within a relatively short timeframe, often measured in days or even hours.

Here's a breakdown of what "imminent" might mean in this context:

1. Readiness of Nuclear Forces: This includes factors like the alert status of nuclear forces, the availability of launch platforms (missiles, bombers, submarines), and the time it takes to prepare and execute a launch sequence.

2. Political and Military Tensions: High levels of political tension, military buildup, and aggressive rhetoric from opposing sides can increase the likelihood of nuclear weapons use. The presence of a specific triggering event, like a military attack or escalation of conflict, can also be a factor.

3. Intelligence and Assessment: Intelligence agencies play a crucial role in assessing the likelihood of nuclear use. Their analysis of an adversary's intentions, capabilities, and decision-making processes helps determine the imminence of a nuclear attack.

4. Lack of Precise Timeframe: While "imminent" suggests a short timeframe, it's not typically defined in terms of a specific number of hours or days. It's more of a qualitative judgment based on the overall situation and available information.

5. Examples in History: The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, is a stark example of a situation where the risk of nuclear war was perceived as high and potentially imminent, but ultimately averted.

6. Subjectivity and Context: Ultimately, the judgment of whether nuclear weapons are "imminent" is subjective and depends on the specific context of the situation.

wombatwoody wrote on Jun 24^th, 2025 at 7:01am:

wombatwoody wrote on Jun 25^th, 2025 at 6:37am:


They live together peacefully in Israel right now.

But everywhere else in the middle east and north africa, there are almost zero Jews left, after all those centuries of "peace".

Muslims will tolerate Jews being alive in the middle east, to some extent. It is the lack of Islamic theocracy to oppress them and the fact that the Jews appear to be in charge that makes them foam at the mouth.

Quote:


Wow. You are gullible. You think the Jewish conspiracy is so grand it encompasses genocide of the Jews from almost all of the middle east and north africa.

Quote:


If that were true they would object to every other country in the middle east and north africa. They only object to Israel. Because of the Jews.

Quote:


Israel is already great. But you are right, there is no reason it cannot be improved.