The whole point of the negotiations now are to avert this, however. It seems to me that it's worth the effort, so long as we don't sell the farm to get a bum deal. I don't like that the negotiations thus far have succeeded only in giving Iran more time to develop etc. The negotiations have missed nearly ever deadline.
Which is an insanely ineffective way to yield the amount of uranium needed for a nuclear weapons program with a useful delivery schedule. We aren't overly concerned that Iran is going to build a calutron bomb program. It also isn't an 'invisible' program.Like I said, it appears you don't know a thing about the process of enriching uranium. Do you even realize something so basic as a nuclear reactor is not needed to enrich it? Basically the uranium is mined, crushed, milled and converted into yellow cake using various chemicals. The yellow cake is then converted uranium hexafluoride by chemical reactions using nitric acid, hydrofluoric acid, fluorine, etc. Once you have the uranium hexafluoride, it can be heated to form a gas. The U235, which is what you need for a fission bomb, can be separated from the U238. You don't need a nuclear reactor to do any of that. Since you like to use the phrase "in fact", IN FACT any freshman physics student knows about the cyclotron formula. Using that formula one could separate the U235 by putting the gaseous uranium hexafluoride into a magnetic field at a certain velocity. I said that because it could be done, even without centrifuges and certainly without a reactor. However one could simply run a small number centrifuges, and over many years have enough U235 for a bomb. Now what I just said is a fact. And even I, with the little knowledge of physics that I have know that. That is how common that knowledge is. Someone who is expert could do all that, undetected on a small scale.
1. You assertion that the possibility of bombardment makes the cost of reconstruction untenable or impossible, is questionable. On the surface of it one can merely question your assessment of impossible. I doubt seriously that you could demonstrate the the mere possibility of bombardment would make it impossible. Now untenable, that is debatable as it is possible that it could be tenable.
2. You have casually brushed aside that even if you destroy the infrastructure, it can be rebuilt if one knows how. And Iran knows how. You can't bomb knowledge.
3. You do not account for the possibility that it is possible to carry on a program that was not detected by an attack.
Last edited by MildSteel; 02-21-15 at 01:00 PM.
Your response bears witness to its effectiveness in illustrating the point that destroying everything in Iran is somewhat absurd.
That is the point.
2. Anything can be rebuilt. A dam can be rebuilt, but it is going to be an expensive and laborious process--just like it was the first time around. Except this time the economy is much more fragile and the risk of military attack is a near certainty unless it can be hidden. I'm doubtful Iran would be able to prioritize such a program under those circumstances anymore than Iraq was able to after the destruction of Osiraq.
3. Always possible but extremely difficult. If this is the only plausible route Iran has after the destruction of its facilities I think such a coalition would sleep peacefully.
And the reasons people care are, IMO, basically three fold.
2) Pro-Israeli lobby groups/extremists
3) Neo cons trying to push the 'Iran is evil and must be destroyed' angle because Neo cons are always looking for new enemies to justify the massive Military Industrial Complex.
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."
I also wanted to make it perfectly clear. I AM NOT AT ALL SUGGESTING THAT IRAN IS ACTUALLY DOING THIS. My point is that if Iran really wanted to build a nuclear weapon, it could do so despite military action.