8 hours ago, dinsdale said:

I find it somewhat perplexing that many on here (and in the press) seem to support a Jihadist dictatorship purely because of a total hate for Trump.

Without pointing fingers, which forum members have said they support Iran's jihadist dictatorship? What press are you referring to that actually supports Iran's jihadist dictatorship?

With your "seem to" comment, you're not doing that, "If you don't like Trump, you must love the Mullahs" nonsense again, are you?

8 hours ago, dinsdale said:

The regime itself has said it has >400 kg 60% enriched uranium. There is no domestic reason for this other than the production of nukes.

Which they do not have the capability of producing or weaponising.

They could sell it to North Korea of course.

31 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Without pointing fingers, which forum members have said they support Iran's jihadist dictatorship? What press are you referring to that actually supports Iran's jihadist dictatorship?

If you're against the war for reasons of "hate Trump" then you support the regime having nukes and controlling the Strait because this is what they want. Trump like all Presidents before him have said "No Nukes". Trump is doing something about. Before anyone mentions the Obama deal the regime was caught cheating on this deal on more than one occasion. They want nukes and ICBMs to deliver them.

8 hours ago, dinsdale said:

9 hours ago, still kicking said:

Israel has nuclear weapons, so what?

False equivalence. Bit like saying the Brits or the French have nukes. Apart from this you asked for evidence.

No it's not a false equivalence.

The French or Brits aren't the same scale of warmongers that the Israeli are, so they don't fear each other.

8 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Apart from this you asked for evidence. The regime itself has said it has >400 kg 60% enriched uranium.

The only reason they have 60% enriched uranium is because Trump tore up the agreement Obama negotiated, so they then decided to go all in. The level of uranium they have can NOT be used for nuclear weapons.

https://www.sipri.org/commentary/essay/2021/why-iran-producing-60-cent-enriched-uranium

29 April 2021

Robert E. Kelley

On 13 April, Iran announced its intention to enrich uranium to 60 per cent U-235. This was characterized by Iran as a response to a sabotage of its vast underground enrichment cascades at Natanz two days before. The move comes against the backdrop of sensitive negotiations happening in Vienna aimed at rescuing the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and bringing the United States back into compliance with the deal.

A political message

Uranium enriched to 60 per cent cannot be used to make a useful nuclear explosive device, and Iran has no other realistic use for this material. 

This strongly suggests that Iran’s decision was intended to send a political message: ‘We have gone as far as we can go in response to provocations without producing weapons-grade uranium.’

24 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

If you're against the war for reasons of "hate Trump" then you support the regime having nukes and controlling the Strait because this is what they want. Trump like all Presidents before him have said "No Nukes". Trump is doing something about. Before anyone mentions the Obama deal the regime was caught cheating on this deal on more than one occasion. They want nukes and ICBMs to deliver them.

If you can put this "hate Trump" caveat aside for a moment, would you consider that those that view this war as a dangerous and unapproved act of aggression that's having a significant negative impact on the global economy, are supporting the jihadist dictatorship in Iran and their global proxies?

3 hours ago, thailand49 said:

Enough, pound of your flesh I can go all day with guys like you it is my pasr time.

I think your time is past, actually.

3 hours ago, dinsdale said:

60% is one step away.

Wrong Again !!! I suppose you believe trump in that he said Iran was weeks away from having a nuke !! more fool you !! expert agree iran was 1.5 to 2 years away yes they had 60% enriched uranium as uranium hexafluoride gas that needs to reach 90% weapons grade that's not the hard part could take weeks the hard part is Weaponization which could take up to 2 years

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iran-was-nowhere-close-to-a-nuclear-bomb-experts-say/

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12106

As a side note Iran is banned from buying tc99 by sanctions. it is used for radioisotope in nuclear medicine, employed in approximately 80% of all nuclear diagnostic procedures worldwide. It acts as a radioactive tracer that emits gamma rays, allowing gamma cameras to create images of internal body structures

what has this to do with 60% uranium is because to produce tc99 isotope you need 60% enriched uranium

24 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Wrong Again !!! I suppose you believe trump in that he said Iran was weeks away from having a nuke !! more fool you !! expert agree iran was 1.5 to 2 years away yes they had 60% enriched uranium as uranium hexafluoride gas that needs to reach 90% weapons grade that's not the hard part could take weeks the hard part is Weaponization which could take up to 2 years

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iran-was-nowhere-close-to-a-nuclear-bomb-experts-say/

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12106

As a side note Iran is banned from buying tc99 by sanctions. it is used for radioisotope in nuclear medicine, employed in approximately 80% of all nuclear diagnostic procedures worldwide. It acts as a radioactive tracer that emits gamma rays, allowing gamma cameras to create images of internal body structures

what has this to do with 60% uranium is because to produce tc99 isotope you need 60% enriched uranium

AI Overview

Yes, 60% enriched uranium is widely considered to be one short, technical step away from weapons-grade uranium (~90% U-235), putting it directly on the threshold of producing nuclear weapon material.

Which is what I said. As for radioisotopes for medical/industrial applications this is a completely different kettle of fish.

AI Overview

Weapons-grade uranium and 90% enriched radioisotopes represent two distinct applications of nuclear technology, distinguished primarily by their fissile concentration and final use (explosives vs. medical/industrial). While both involve high-level isotopic manipulation, they differ in their purpose and composition.

Key Differences

• Fissile vs. Radioactive: Weapons-grade uranium is highly fissile (meaning it can sustain a chain reaction), but actually relatively low in radioactivity compared to many radioisotopes. Many 90% enriched radioisotopes are highly radioactive, designed to decay quickly to produce radiation, but are not fissile.

• Usage: WGU makes explosions; radioisotopes are used in technology, energy, and medicine.

• Proliferation Risk: WGU is a major proliferation risk monitored by the IAEA, while 90% radioisotopes (like those in a "dirty bomb" context) are primarily a security risk regarding radiation spread.

There's zero need to be enriching for radioisotopes buried deep under mountains.

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

AI Overview

Yes, 60% enriched uranium is widely considered to be one short, technical step away from weapons-grade uranium (~90% U-235), putting it directly on the threshold of producing nuclear weapon material.

Which is what I said. As for radioisotopes for medical/industrial applications this is a completely different kettle of fish.

AI Overview

Weapons-grade uranium and 90% enriched radioisotopes represent two distinct applications of nuclear technology, distinguished primarily by their fissile concentration and final use (explosives vs. medical/industrial). While both involve high-level isotopic manipulation, they differ in their purpose and composition.

Key Differences

• Fissile vs. Radioactive: Weapons-grade uranium is highly fissile (meaning it can sustain a chain reaction), but actually relatively low in radioactivity compared to many radioisotopes. Many 90% enriched radioisotopes are highly radioactive, designed to decay quickly to produce radiation, but are not fissile.

• Usage: WGU makes explosions; radioisotopes are used in technology, energy, and medicine.

• Proliferation Risk: WGU is a major proliferation risk monitored by the IAEA, while 90% radioisotopes (like those in a "dirty bomb" context) are primarily a security risk regarding radiation spread.

There's zero need to be enriching for radioisotopes buried deep under mountains.

Other than the fact that Trump withdrew from the JCPOA. The enrichment came after that. Now he has cornered himself, as he has to come up with something better. Death and destruction over a "what if.."

4 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

AI Overview

Yes, 60% enriched uranium is widely considered to be one short, technical step away from weapons-grade uranium (~90% U-235), putting it directly on the threshold of producing nuclear weapon material.

Which is what I said. As for radioisotopes for medical/industrial applications this is a completely different kettle of fish.

AI Overview

Weapons-grade uranium and 90% enriched radioisotopes represent two distinct applications of nuclear technology, distinguished primarily by their fissile concentration and final use (explosives vs. medical/industrial). While both involve high-level isotopic manipulation, they differ in their purpose and composition.

Key Differences

• Fissile vs. Radioactive: Weapons-grade uranium is highly fissile (meaning it can sustain a chain reaction), but actually relatively low in radioactivity compared to many radioisotopes. Many 90% enriched radioisotopes are highly radioactive, designed to decay quickly to produce radiation, but are not fissile.

• Usage: WGU makes explosions; radioisotopes are used in technology, energy, and medicine.

• Proliferation Risk: WGU is a major proliferation risk monitored by the IAEA, while 90% radioisotopes (like those in a "dirty bomb" context) are primarily a security risk regarding radiation spread.

There's zero need to be enriching for radioisotopes buried deep under mountains.

Again wrong Context !!! nobody is arguing that 60% uranium is one step short of weapons grade that is still far away from being a nuke the main problem is Weaponization !! look that up !! and IRAN does Not have 90% weapons grade as far as we know ! 60% uranium is used to make tc99 isotope for medical Iran is banned from buying tc99 and Iran has said that, there is no proof other wise

you have been shouting about how Iran has 60% uranium so what !! how do you know they were using it to make a bomb you dont you are assuming and that is all you do in your posts, assumptions are NOT facts, until you can PROVE that Iran was making a bomb your posts are rubbish

5 minutes ago, IsmeUno said:

Other than the fact that Trump withdrew from the JCPOA. The enrichment came after that. Now he has cornered himself, as he has to come up with something better. Death and destruction over a "what if.."

The JCPOA had a sunset clause, did not address ICBMs and restricted access/inspections from being "anytime, anywhere".

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

The JCPOA had a sunset clause, did not address ICBMs and restricted access/inspections from being "anytime, anywhere".

Stop digging up misleading assumptions.

Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was granted the authority to conduct enhanced, unannounced inspections and access to Iranian nuclear sites, representing a "more robust" verification system than standard agreements.

6 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

The JCPOA had a sunset clause, did not address ICBMs and restricted access/inspections from being "anytime, anywhere".

According to Western intelligence sources, it could take Iran up to a decade to fully deploy a functional, militarily usable ICBM

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Stop digging up misleading assumptions.

Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was granted the authority to conduct enhanced, unannounced inspections and access to Iranian nuclear sites, representing a "more robust" verification system than standard agreements.

This is what this guy does all the time assumptions !!!!!!

According to Western intelligence sources, it could take Iran up to a decade to fully deploy a functional, militarily usable ICBM

1 minute ago, MikeandDow said:

you have been shouting about how Iran has 60% uranium so what !! how do you know they were using it to make a bomb

What else? I've already pointed out that radioisotopes are a different thing and domestic power only needs enrichment between 3-5% so what they have isn't for medical, industrial or power generation. What's it for then? They were also embarking on ICBM production. IMO a conclusion as to why the have 460 kg of 60% enriched uranium produced deep underground and more than likely securely hidden around the country is pretty obvious to all those that don't suffer from a certain irrational and total hate of Trump. I am also well aware that the final step from 60% to weaponization, although basically "one step" is complex.

5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

What else? I've already pointed out that radioisotopes are a different thing and domestic power only needs enrichment between 3-5% so what they have isn't for medical, industrial or power generation. What's it for then? They were also embarking on ICBM production. IMO a conclusion as to why the have 460 kg of 60% enriched uranium produced deep underground and more than likely securely hidden around the country is pretty obvious to all those that don't suffer from a certain irrational and total hate of Trump. I am also well aware that the final step from 60% to weaponization, although basically "one step" is complex.

Do you accept that Trump contributed to the move to 60%?

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

What else? I've already pointed out that radioisotopes are a different thing and domestic power only needs enrichment between 3-5% so what they have isn't for medical, industrial or power generation. What's it for then? They were also embarking on ICBM production. IMO a conclusion as to why the have 460 kg of 60% enriched uranium produced deep underground and more than likely securely hidden around the country is pretty obvious to all those that don't suffer from a certain irrational and total hate of Trump. I am also well aware that the final step from 60% to weaponization, although basically "one step" is complex.

Again Wrong !!!! "the final step from 60% to weaponization," the final step as You call it 1 60% uranium has to be made into weapons grade could be weeks to make 2 they Iran have to build a bomb could take up to 2 yrs according to experts

Again to make tc99 isotope for medical you Need 60% enriched uranium

what has domestic power got to do with anything ???

another totally rubbish post

8 minutes ago, IsmeUno said:

Do you accept that Trump contributed to the move to 60%?

I seriously don’t think it would necessarily be a bad thing for Iran to acquire them. The logic is essentially that of MAD Mutually Assured Destruction which, however grim, arguably helped preserve peace between states that both possessed nuclear weapons during the Cold War.

And for the record, Israel has often projected regional power far more aggressively than Iran, despite the way the issue is usually framed in Western discourse. Critics also point to the double standard whereby Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal is largely tolerated while Iran’s ambitions provoke constant threats of military action.

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

The JCPOA had a sunset clause, did not address ICBMs and restricted access/inspections from being "anytime, anywhere".

Yes...10 years.

That means it could have gone on until 2025, just in time for Trump to ratify it again.

But no, he had to show off, try to boost his poll numbers, divert from Epstein, and destroy anything that has Obama's name on it.

The agency had "sources and methods" that reported on Iran's compliance (or not) with the terms of the JCPOA. Iran was 100% in compliance. After assuming office in 2017, Trump could have done what the JCPOA was intended to do, which was build upon that to address Iran's support for Shi'a terror. Given that the mullahs were aging, lived very well, and saw what the US could do (when Obama & the agency unleashed the Stuxnet virus), it was certainly worth a chance to try to build upon the JCPOA.

That Iran once again began to enrich U235 is 100% Trump's fault.

2 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I think your time is past, actually.

2 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I think your time is past, actually.

That my sentiment too Iabout you that 24 hours you and whole family gone!🤣 that didn't happen bring it on keep trying that is what Jewish haters do!

3 hours ago, dinsdale said:

If you're against the war for reasons of "hate Trump" then you support the regime having nukes and controlling the Strait because this is what they want. Trump like all Presidents before him have said "No Nukes". Trump is doing something about. Before anyone mentions the Obama deal the regime was caught cheating on this deal on more than one occasion. They want nukes and ICBMs to deliver them.

Using your "logic", if you support Trump, then you are against the fundamental ideals of the United States, particularly the 1st Amendment. Trump hates the US Constitution, particularly as it relates to free speech (Jimmy Kimmel, The View, etc.) and freedom of the press.

Real patriots support the fundamental freedoms outlined in the Constitution, which is why real patriots oppose Trump. Supporting the Constitution is not a matter of opinion or a political ideology; it is a requirement for all true American patriots, which neither Trump nor anyone who supports him is.

People will believe what they want but those might want to research Rubio as to why they attach this last time although it was noted theu have so call taken out the production of nukes.

14 hours ago, dinsdale said:

They have 60% enriched uranium.

See the links posted by @MikeandDow regarding the possibility of Iran's imminent nuclear weapon capability threat.

Notwithstanding the contents of those links, Iran was only allowed to enrich uranium to a maximum of 20% under the terms of the JCPOA, and independent inspectors did not find evidence of Iran breaching this Agreement.

Trump tore up the Agreement. That action was the catalyst for today's problems. The fault lies squarely on his shoulders.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

Iran was only allowed to enrich uranium to a maximum of 20% under the terms of the JCPOA, and independent inspectors did not find evidence of Iran breaching this Agreement.

So they weren't hiding anything and denying inspectors the right to inspect "anytime, anywhere" wasn't because they were doing enrichment past 20% in secret locations it was because ...?

13 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

So they weren't hiding anything and denying inspectors the right to inspect "anytime, anywhere" wasn't because they were doing enrichment past 20% in secret locations it was because ...?

For the umpteenth time, Iran denied IAEA inspection after Trump withdrew from the JCPAO. Iran began disregarding the limitation on its nuclear program after US withdrawal. Typical Trump to creat the problem and then claim to solve them.

32 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

So they weren't hiding anything and denying inspectors the right to inspect "anytime, anywhere" wasn't because they were doing enrichment past 20% in secret locations it was because ...?

Again wrong!! another post FULL of assumptions !!

27 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

So they weren't hiding anything and denying inspectors the right to inspect "anytime, anywhere" wasn't because they were doing enrichment past 20% in secret locations it was because ...?

So guilty until proven innocent? Shades of WMD in Iraq. Remind me where the stockpiles were found? That's right, they weren't.

Inspectors didn't have the right to inspect "anytime anywhere" under the terms of the JCPOA. The inspectors found no breaches of the terms of the Agreement until 2019 i.e. until the US pulled out of the Agreement.

This conflict is of Trump's making, development and implementation. Simple as that.

Trump's $25 billion with a 'B' war boondoggle continues. Meanwhile, on the homefront, the WH ballroom, which was supposed to be privately-funded and cost 100 million dollars, is now budgeted at 1 billion, also with a 'B' dollars, and the taxpayers will be stuck paying for it, if the Republicans have their way.

Painting the Reflecting Pool a hideous swimming pool blue was supposed to cost 1.3 million dollars but is now projected to be $13.5 million. Apparently a 'no-bid' contract.

Trump's vanity gift jet, which is being rushed to completion in time for the USA 250th anniversary, is costing between 400 million and a billion dollars to retrofit. Again, a billion with a 'B'. Big price gap as much of the spending has been deeply buried--and rightly so as it's so embarrassing.

Curious that the Boeing jets being readied are mandated to have all sorts of must-have, required stuff that has taken years to implement in order to fly the president, but the gift jet is going into service super-quickly. Makes no sense. Either the gift jet should have the same required specs as the Boeing jets or the Boeing jets can be finished with just the gift jet specs. 400 million to a billion dollars spent for a jet that will soon end up as a super-expensive bauble at Trump's library. Trump grifting at its very finest.

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

For the umpteenth time, Iran denied IAEA inspection after Trump withdrew from the JCPAO. Iran began disregarding the limitation on its nuclear program after US withdrawal. Typical Trump to creat the problem and then claim to solve them.

AI Overview

Iran never agreed to "anytime, anywhere" inspections under the 2015 JCPOA, and has frequently rejected or restricted access to sites, particularly military facilities. While the deal provided intense IAEA monitoring, it allowed Iran to challenge requests for access to non-nuclear sites, leading to a managed access process that could take weeks.

45 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

AI Overview

Iran never agreed to "anytime, anywhere" inspections under the 2015 JCPOA, and has frequently rejected or restricted access to sites, particularly military facilities. While the deal provided intense IAEA monitoring, it allowed Iran to challenge requests for access to non-nuclear sites, leading to a managed access process that could take weeks.

Iran never agreed to "anytime, anywhere" inspections under the 2015 JCPOA for the simple reason that such inspections were never part of the Agreement.

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

Iran never agreed to "anytime, anywhere" inspections under the 2015 JCPOA for the simple reason that such inspections were never part of the Agreement.

AI Overview

No, "anytime, anywhere" inspections were not part of the final Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed in 2015.

While some US officials, including Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz, initially mentioned expecting "anywhere, anytime access" in early 2015, this standard was not adopted in the final text.

• Final Inspection Process: Instead of "anytime, anywhere," the deal created a "managed access" process for suspicious, undeclared sites.

• The 24-Day Rule: If Iran denied a request for access, a joint commission would review it. This process could take up to 24 days or longer, allowing for a delay that critics argued gave time to hide evidence of covert nuclear activity.

• Access Limitations: The deal did not give inspectors unrestricted access to military sites.

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

AI Overview

No, "anytime, anywhere" inspections were not part of the final Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed in 2015. [1, 2]

While some US officials, including Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz, initially mentioned expecting "anywhere, anytime access" in early 2015, this standard was not adopted in the final text. [1, 2]

• Final Inspection Process: Instead of "anytime, anywhere," the deal created a "managed access" process for suspicious, undeclared sites.

• The 24-Day Rule: If Iran denied a request for access, a joint commission would review it. This process could take up to 24 days or longer, allowing for a delay that critics argued gave time to hide evidence of covert nuclear activity.

• Access Limitations: The deal did not give inspectors unrestricted access to military sites.

Do you know what you are talking about !!!!!!!

one of your post quote "So they weren't hiding anything and denying inspectors the right to inspect "anytime, anywhere" wasn't because they were doing enrichment past 20% in secret locations it was because ...?"

now your latest post is now saying quote "anytime, anywhere" inspections were not part of the final Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action"

so which is it ??

The Iran was complying with JCPOA until Trump withdrew from the JCPAO then Iran development started so who is to blame TRUMP