[dj_gitmo]

> Iran was enriching weapons grade uranium

Do you have a citation for this?

[flyinglizard]

IAEA was claiming 60% enrichment. Enough weapons grade material for nine warheads: https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Analy...

[dragontamer]

Weapons grade Uranium is over 90% purity.

60% is just a stepping stone towards 90%.

[lamontcg]

That's like saying driving from NYC to Sacramento is just a "Stepping Stone" to driving to SF. You've done most of the drive.

To get 1kg of U-235 requires 1.11kg at 90% purity, 1.67kg at 60% purity, and 140.6kg at natural 0.711% purity.

[Teever]

Sure, but if this is being talked about like there's a legal justification to take military action then there actually has to be legal justification.

Was what Iran doing illegal?

[firesteelrain]

It was a pre-emptive strike based on the behaviors of a state sponsor of terrorism. It’s not like the US and its allies have not tried to stop this before - see StuxNet

[Teever]

Sure, but is a kinetic pre-emptive strike in this context legal?

Because this is what underlies all of this -- is the premise that Iran is behaving in an unacceptable and illegal fashion and therefore a legal response with violence is justified.

This all presupposes that Iran is breaking the law with their production of nuclear weapons. Are they breaking the law with their production of nuclear weapons?

[drewwwwww]

bad news about who the US sponsors

[busterarm]

You only get to 60% on the road to 90%. At 60% it has no other useful purpose.

[codethief]

I read an interview with a nuclear physicist the other day who said "If you can do 60%, you've nailed the technique, so 90% is not difficult anymore."

Besides, there is no non-military need for enriching uranium beyond a few percent, so it's very clear what those 60% mean.