If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!

[barney]

2. If it is good, why doesn’t it allow others to have it, too?
3. Has US signed the IAEA or NPT treaty? Or it will?
4. Why do those who did not sign the NPT have the right to build a nuclear bomb?
5. Why are those who signed the NPT not allowed to go after civilian nuclear technology?
6. Why has US been depriving Iran of spare parts for passenger planes for 27 years? Are they used in NP?
7. What guarantees that Iran will be provided with nuclear fuel if it accepts producing it elsewhere?
8. Why do US+allies have stockpiles of nuclear weapons and threaten the security of the middle east?
9 Did Iran ever drop a nuclear bomb on any neighbour or any remote land as US did in Hiroshima?
10 Will US drop nuclear bombs on Iran if all means fail to stop it from building a nuclear reactor?
____________________________________
2. Your saying a weapon is good? Umm its the most terrible weapon in the world. Problem is once its been invented, try uninventing it.
3. NPT was decades back. The USSR and West had already built thousands of warheads, the idea was that numbers wouldnt grow higher so that stability was improved. The Idea that stability improves by giving Mahadmood "Wipe Israel Off The Map" Ahmadinajahd some Nukes because it would be "Fair" is freaking NUTS.
4. Build away. Have the world come down on you hard. Losers for not signing.
5. Sure. Anyone whos got a leader not waving his fists around threatening to wipe out countries whilst simulaniously sitting on the third biggest pool of oil in the whole world, can seek peaceful nuclear power.
6. Oh Buy Russian already. Theyll sell their souls for a rouble. Better still, the fantastic Iranian Industrial miracle could build their own planes. Or do you still need those 45 year old MIG 21's.
7. Because we do that with other countries that arn't led by Religious nutcases. Revolt and put in someone whos not foaming at the mouth to destroy Infidels and it helps your chances. Amazingly.
8. We have stockpiles of Nukes because we kept a few back after the cold war, because Nukes exist and without them, someone else is going to nuke you. Old OBL would have fried western citys in a heartbeat if he diddnt factor in the massive nuclear retaliation. As for threatening the security of the middle east, By supporting a democratic Israel against a pack of dictators? Or by freeing the people of Iraq to make their own choices. Even if it is for 20% of them to butcher as many Iraqi kids as possible? Security comes about by realising where the blame lies. Swap your Bush burning effigys for Ahmadinerjahd effergies and see how long it takes before you "dissapear"
9) It hasnt built em. Let them build one and lets all find out. Invading Japan would have cost, its generally agreed, 3 million American and 14 million Japanese Lives and destroyed their country. Instead the war was finished without the continual mass firebombing of Dresden, Berlin and Coventry and saved those 20 million. Japan however was subdued by the US and is now the poorest country in the world. It's people live in cardboard huts and its only export is Clay. Nobody buys it. It has no industry and ranks as a tiny enslaved cripple of a power with no wealth or prospects, in a similar manner to Germany. The USA caused this.
10. No. If it carries on though , one night the factory will explode, and good riddance too.

 

[Cognescenti]

Don't try to pretend like you even have 1/2 a clue what I do and do not like. BTW, I don't have any American friends...

I am not surprised given your sentiments.

As for the response to my old post....believe whatever you want...you will anyway. The truth is there but if you choose to keep your blinders on go for it, it doesn't effect me one way or another. I could continue with the back and forth where you dismiss my facts without providing any of your own....and why? Because you can't. all you have is lip service and the accusation of using biased websites.

I didn't dismiss your facts, just the conclusions you claim flow from them....and I explained why. It's called debate. You, for example, made the unsubstantiable claim of a "skyrocketing" leukemia rate in Southern Iraq. I found that not credible and I asked for some evidence. I am a scientist..I can take it. If you supply credible proof then I will give credence to your depleted uranium claim. You seem to have none, therefore I remain skeptical.

So, do and believe whatever you like. But, when the tables are turned, (and they will), I'm looking forward to your whining and your "I'm a victim" speech.

Sorry, can't tell where you are going with that one..other than the possible theat about the tables turning. I hope you aren't planning anything yourself.

To use your style of writing: stopping this conversation is kinda like beating your head against wall....it feels so good when you stop.

Ta Ta

Hana

Very well. Please have a pleasant retreat.

 

[*Hana*]

I am not surprised given your sentiments.

heehee typical...pick out a couple of words and leave the rest in the hopes the true statement gets lost. And, you also neglected to mention what sentiments you are referring to.

I didn't dismiss your facts, just the conclusions you claim flow from them....and I explained why. It's called debate. You, for example, made the unsubstantiable claim of a "skyrocketing" leukemia rate in Southern Iraq. I found that not credible and I asked for some evidence. I am a scientist..I can take it. If you supply credible proof then I will give credence to your depleted uranium claim. You seem to have none, therefore I remain skeptical.

not at all my claim and never claimed it to be...go read something instead of babbling on with nothing except your own opinion. For a "scientist" you're not very good at this are you. loool "i seem to have none"? lool Take it up with the real scientists who made the claim. Give your proof to the opposite instead of paying lip service which is all you ever do. You never offer anything accept your opinion. And ummmm, on the net, I can be a scientist too, and I say, the facts finding the climbing leukemia rate in southern iraq is founded. My opinion is worth as much as yours. Now what? See how your idea of "debate" doesn't work. By the way...you might want to try reading again to have a better understanding of how and when those numbers were compiled. You were just too quick to get your "opinion" in there to fully read and comprehend statements.

Maybe this will help:

Just about all American bullets, tank shells, missiles, dumb bombs, smart bombs, 500 and 2,000 pound bombs, cruise missiles, and anything else engineered to help our side in the war of us against them has Uranium in it. Lots of Uranium.

In the case of a cruise missile, as much as 800 pounds of the stuff. This article is about how much radioactive uranium our guys, representing us, the citizens of the United States, let fly in Iraq. Turns out they used about 4,000,000 pounds of the stuff, give or take, according to the Pentagon and the United Nations. That is a bunch.

Now, most people have no idea how much Four Million Pounds of anything is, much less of Uranium Oxide Dust (UOD), which this stuff turns into when it is shot or exploded. Suffice it to say it is about equal to 1,333 cars that weigh three thousand pounds apiece. That is a lot of cars; but, we can imagine what a parking lot with one thousand three hundred and thirty three cars is like. The point is: this was and is an industrial strength operation. It is still going on, too.

source

source

source

source

source

source

source

source

source

source

Now if this isn't enough for you...just let me know and I'll give you more. However, I can guess what you want to say, "These sources are no good...they're biased." And they would be biased because they don't say what you want them to say. NOW, maybe you can understand why I had no desire to continue talking with you and why I felt it best to stop banging my head against a wall. But, I couldn't resist the opportunity to show your "opinion" for what it truly is....worthless.

Sorry, can't tell where you are going with that one..other than the possible theat about the tables turning. I hope you aren't planning anything yourself.

Yeah ok, that was spoken like an educated "scientist". :-[ Wouldn't every logical thinking human being come up with that conclusion?? :X

Very well. Please have a pleasant retreat.

LOOOL frustrated or hopeful? Does it make you feel some how superior to say that? Are you suffering from an inferiority complex of sorts? You see, the grown up thing to say would have been to simply respond with a returned "ta ta" Glad I could help with the extra dose of self-esteem, but you shouldn't be so quick to flatter yourself. :-[ Keep those opinions coming and over time you might even be able to back them with some kind of proof from real scientists. :thumbs_up

With peace, and extra strength Advil,

Hana

 

[Cognescenti]

heehee typical...pick out a couple of words and leave the rest in the hopes the true statement gets lost. And, you also neglected to mention what sentiments you are referring to.

I will admit, that was a cheap shot. It was a joke. The sentiment I was referring to is your apparent belief that all evil starts at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

And ummmm, on the net, I can be a scientist too, and I say, the facts finding the climbing leukemia rate in southern iraq is founded. My opinion is worth as much as yours. Now what? See how your idea of "debate" doesn't work. By the way...you might want to try reading again to have a better understanding of how and when those numbers were compiled. You were just too quick to get your "opinion" in there to fully read and comprehend statements.

Nope. It doesn't work that way. You made the claim that childhood luekemia had "skyrocketed' in Iraq after the evil Americans shot the place up with DU. Simply citing a few anecdotal reports is not scientific evidence. Nobody really knows what the leukemia rate in Iraq was before the war. Southern Iraq was the poor stepchild under Hussein because of the Shia insurrections. The health care there was pure ****. Nobody even really knows how many people live in Southern Iraq. How could you hope to cite a prevalence rate? There is the additional problem that exposure to metallic uranium has not been previously associated with leukemia (to my knowledge). Here is what the the WHO has to say on the issue:

Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium

* In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.
* In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.
* Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
* No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
* No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.
* Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

I have actually read the study on Uranium miners. Navajo uranium miners in underground (hard rock) Uranium mines in the 1950's experienced an increased risk of lung cancer (many years later 15-30 yrs). Smokers were particualry susceptible, experiencing a doubling of risk. The problem here is they were also inhaling not insignificant quantities of radioactive radon gas (a byproduct of uranium decay which become concentrated in a mine but quickly disperses in the atmosphere above ground) which has been conclusively proven to be a health risk.

There is evidence linking leukemia directly to radon exposure, as well (Czech study). Again, this applies to uranium miners who spend their work lives underground in much higher radon levels. The miners had a 75% increased risk of Leukemias of all types over their work lives.

I also read the Basra Hospital report. It is best to call it a report because it is very lacking from a scientific standpoint. This dates from GWI...BTW, not from the current war in Iraq. It appears to show an increase in cancer and leukemias but it starts immediately after the war. This is very suspicious because that is not how the disease usually presents. It may be lousy data, it may be deferred care (very likely), it may be willfully misreported or fraudulent. Even if it is true, it does not automatically indict DU as there are many confounding events...like Hussein setting most of the oil wells in Kuwait on fire and releasing God only knows howm many tons of Benzene and other nasty stuff into the air. Basra was the site of nasty fighting in the Iran Iraq war when Hussein sprayed tons of nerve agent and hundreds of tons of mustard gas in the area. Do you think this is good for you? If you ask me, if there is a larger cancer risk in Southern Iraq I would look to what happened 20 years ago Look at Marie Curie. She worked with Radium all her adult life..took essentially no precautions and died of leukemia at 66.

Just about all American bullets, tank shells, missiles, dumb bombs, smart bombs, 500 and 2,000 pound bombs, cruise missiles, and anything else engineered to help our side in the war of us against them has Uranium in it. Lots of Uranium.

In the case of a cruise missile, as much as 800 pounds of the stuff. This article is about how much radioactive uranium our guys, representing us, the citizens of the United States, let fly in Iraq. Turns out they used about 4,000,000 pounds of the stuff, give or take, according to the Pentagon and the United Nations. That is a bunch.

That is pure bull. DU is used specifically to aid in the penetration of heavily armored targets (like tanks). It doesn't offer advantages as a projectile for other purposes. It is therefore used in rounds designed to penetrate tank armor....like amor-piercing main gun rounds for the M1 tanks, and the Bradley. The USAF uses it on the A-10 gun. The opposition in Iraq doesn't have any tanks any more. The threat now is a guy with an AK-47. They aren't going to waste a armor piercing tank round of a guy in sandals. Do you realize the warhead on a DU-equiped antitank round doesnt have explosive in it? It has a specific purpose.

It is absolutely false that it is used in "...just about all American bullets, tank shells, missiles, dumb bombs, smart bombs, 500 and 2,000 pound bombs, cruise missiles". Absolute hysterical paranoia. The author is either clueless or he is purposely manipulating people. Has he never heard of lead?

I especially liked this reference you gave:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124924,00.html

Did you actually read it or just Googled "uranium"?

The story is about the US sequestering two tons of uranium and other radioactive items left over from the fledgeling Iranian nuke program!!!!

It isn't even about DU.

LOOOL frustrated or hopeful? Does it make you feel some how superior to say that? Are you suffering from an inferiority complex of sorts? You see, the grown up thing to say would have been to simply respond with a returned "ta ta" Glad I could help with the extra dose of self-esteem, but you shouldn't be so quick to flatter yourself. :-[ Keep those opinions coming and over time you might even be able to back them with some kind of proof from real scientists. :thumbs_up

With peace, and extra strength Advil,

Hana

You needn't have responded to my post either. The grown up thing to do would be to admit that you have been influenced by anti-US propaganda which has no basis in the evidence. I won't hold my breath

ta ta

 

[Muezzin]

Guys, at the rate things are going, this thing is going to be locked pretty soon.

Unless everyone saves the thread. Be a hero. Post on topic.

 

[Cognescenti]

Yes..sorry. We were getting far afield. The anti-Americansim just gets to me after a bit. :X

 

[*Hana*]

Yes, I did read the article and I put it there for a reason. You obviously missed the point.

You're so tuned in to anti-Americanism, that's all you see. Yes, I do blame the American and British governments for what is happening in Iraq...why? BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES THAT INVADED!!! If it had been Canada, or Russia or Poland or China or whoever, I would be blaming them...they didn't do it, the USA did. And they did it based on lies. They illegally invaded an innocent country by claiming they had WMD's, (just as the US has), when they KNEW there was none there and said so on more than one occasion PRIOR to the illegal invasion.

Listen, you want to support the American troops in Iraq...go for it, but it doesn't mean you have to accept what the American government did. American soldiers are dying every day because of a lie. Do you want to justify that too? They joined the military to protect and serve their country. Now they're dying in a country that was NEVER a threat to the USA and according to Rice, their military was so destroyed they were never able to re-build and they weren't even a threat to their own neighbours.

What the American and British governments did was absolutely, positively wrong, They have no right to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraqi people are still dying because of their invasion and they are certainly not free. American soldiers are dying for nothing and the only ones responsible for that is Bush and Blair.

As far as the increase in cancer in Iraq, particularly southern Iraq, I'm not going to argue with you. I've seen, first hand, how it happens and the effects it has on children, particularly from 2 years and under. That country is littered with DU and the invading forces are major contributors to that.

You did exactly as I said you would do. Dismiss every single source as insignificant because it doesn't agree with you. These are reports taken from reliable sources, accept them or reject them, it doesn't make any difference. But, they are far more valid than simply your opinion regardless of what you read. Will you find other reports with a differing opinion? Sure you will, you just couldn't be bothered to look. However, as I've said, I've seen what this stuff does and I believe with 100% certainty the cancer rate has skyrocketed, as the articles have stated, and I also believe you will see that number increase dramatically over the next 10-15 years.

BTW, not once did I say anything about evil being at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Those are your words, not mine.

The bottom line is, the USA has nuclear bombs, we all assume Israel has nuclear bombs....and this is all okie dokie. However, Pakistan having a nuclear bomb, and India, or the possibility Iran could be making them, etc., this is NOT ok?? Who determines that? The USA is NOT the world police regardless of their own self importance.

Ta ta

Hana

 

[Muezzin]

By all means critique the wider effects of the Iraq war in a thread of its own.

This thread is more focused on nuclear proliferation.

 

[Woodrow]

Right or wrong we need to keep in mind that the US and the UK are not the only Nations with Troops in Iraq. There have been up to 21 Nations Supporting the US with military troops for use in Iraq. There are also non-Military support for a total of 34 countries currently have People in Iraq.

Iraq Coalition Troops
Non-US Forces in Iraq - February 2007

The size and capabilities of the Coalition forces involved in operations in Iraq has been a subject of much debate, confusion, and at times exageration. As of August 23, 2006, there were 21 non-U.S. military forces contributing armed forces to the Coalition in Iraq. These 21 countries were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

However, in the August 23, 2006 Iraq Weekly Status Report (Slide 27) the State Department listed 27 foreign countries as contributing troops to the Coalition in Iraq. The additional four countries were Japan, Portugal, Singapore and the Ukraine.

In addition, that same Weekly Status Report listed 34 countries (including the US) as maintaining personnel in Iraq (as part of the Coalition, UNAMI, or NATO). The State Department reported that Fiji was contributing troops though UNAMI and that Hungary, Iceland, Slovenia, and Turkey were assisting with the NATO training mission. However, it is unclear whether Hungary actually maintained any forces in Iraq as part of NATO or UNAMI since its government announced the complete withdrawal of troops in December 2004.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm


These Troops in Iraq are a very strong incentive for those Nations to not want Israel or anybody else to use nukes against Iran. Any nuclear strike against Iran would endanger those troops that are in Iraq. But, for the same reason those same 34 nations are at risk if Iran has nukes as that would almost guarantee a first strike by Israel, even without US support or approval.

Israel can feel fairly safe that it is not a viable nuclear target by any nation as it is aware that any Nuclear attack against them would do equal or more damage to the surrounding nations.

 

[vpb]

US is the only country that shouldn't be left with nuclear weapons, bc they are the only ones that used the atomic bomb, and that was used even twice.

 

[Keltoi]

The firebombing of Dresden did much more damage and killed an awful lot of people. The invasion of Japan would have killed far more. The decision to use the atomic bomb in Japan isn't as black and white as it seems.

 

[vpb]

there is NO EXCUSE . full stop

 

[Keltoi]

there is NO EXCUSE . full stop

It isn't about "excuses", it is about the reality of the situation. Any invasion of Japan would have been devastating for both parties. Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been destroyed with the atomic bomb, but an invasion would have reduced the whole of the island to rubble. With a death toll far beyond that caused by the atomic bombs.

 

[vpb]

how many people are being born with mental/physical defects as a result of that atomic bomb?? nothing can be worse than atomic bomb, not even a massacre . the atomic bombs destroys future generations also. so there is no excuse to use it not matter what.

 

[Keltoi]

how many people are being born with mental/physical defects as a result of that atomic bomb?? nothing can be worse than atomic bomb, not even a massacre . the atomic bombs destroys future generations also. so there is no excuse to use it not matter what.

According to most studies there has been no conclusive evidence of genetic mutations in the children of atomic bomb survivors. Those exposed to the atomic fallout, primarily from the hypocenter, have had increased rates of cancer, some malignant some not, and other diseases. All of this has to do with survivors, people who actually lived through the blast. Those born afterwards show no signs of any significant exposure, except those in the womb during the event in question. The fact of the matter is that those who had direct exposure to radiation did have some health issues, some serious and some not. However, there is no evidence that the new generations in Japan have been effected in any way.

http://www.oasisllc.com/abgx/effects.htm

 

[Trumble]

US is the only country that shouldn't be left with nuclear weapons, bc they are the only ones that used the atomic bomb, and that was used even twice.

It was used twice because the Japanese didn't surrender after the first. They did after the second.

Keltoi is right. The estimate casualties for an invasion of mainland Japan were between one and two million, far larger than the casualties from the atomic bombs (which, combined, were less than the firebombing of Tokyo). You make a fair point about future generations, but that wasn't well understood at the time, and even then it's arguable the effect was 'worse'. The decision to use atomic weapons was actually taken to save lives, both American and Japanese. Whether it was 'right' is debatable, but such decisions are much easier in hindsight.

There is obviously one one sensible number of nations 'allowed' to have nuclear weapons - none. When it was just the Cold War power blocks that had them there was always a chance that when the Cold War ended we could have got rid of them. With each new country, though, the opportunity gets more and more remote.

 

[Woodrow]

Right now the US and Russia are the 2 best reasons why no Nation should have Nukes. Once you build them, you can not unbuild them The core components are curently indestructable and will present a threat until the core decays to non fissionable stage. There is a chance that many in the US and Russia Stock pile have reached that point, but nobody really knows and the core will be a radiation hazard for at least a few thousand years.

That is the trouble with those puppies, you can't house break them, they cost a fortune each year to feed and the darn things refuse to die.

I honestly believe that if both the US and Russia knew how to safely dispose of them, they would be disposed of, at least most of them. The stuff you saw disposed of a few years age was the delivery systems not the weapons. So right now both the US and Russia have a huge quantity of them that can not even be used against another nation. They are just accidents waiting to happen.

 

[Cognescenti]

Right now the US and Russia are the 2 best reasons why no Nation should have Nukes. Once you build them, you can not unbuild them The core components are curently indestructable and will present a threat until the core decays to non fissionable stage. There is a chance that many in the US and Russia Stock pile have reached that point, but nobody really knows and the core will be a radiation hazard for at least a few thousand years.

That is the trouble with those puppies, you can't house break them, they cost a fortune each year to feed and the darn things refuse to die.

I honestly believe that if both the US and Russia knew how to safely dispose of them, they would be disposed of, at least most of them. The stuff you saw disposed of a few years age was the delivery systems not the weapons. So right now both the US and Russia have a huge quantity of them that can not even be used against another nation. They are just accidents waiting to happen.

I agree. The US and Russia have MUCH more plutonium and Weapons Grade Uranium than they need for any conceivable current use in nuclear weapons at this time. That is one reason that the Iranian claim of enriching uranium for peaceful purposes is completely laughable. "Reactor grade" uranium can be produced from HEU by simply remixing it with the stuff they spent so much money and time separating it from in the first place (U-238). The Iranians can buy or even be given reactor fuel for a fraction of the cost of producing it de novo.

The plutonium is harder to get rid of....and much more dangerous to people...even when just sitting around.

What we are seeing now is the price of the Cold War. Another massive land war in Europe was avoided...but it wasn't free.

 

[Woodrow]

I agree. The US and Russia have MUCH more plutonium and Weapons Grade Uranium than they need for any conceivable current use in nuclear weapons at this time. That is one reason that the Iranian claim of enriching uranium for peaceful purposes is completely laughable. "Reactor grade" uranium can be produced from HEU by simply remixing it with the stuff they spent so much money and time separating it from in the first place (U-238). The Iranians can buy or even be given reactor fuel for a fraction of the cost of producing it de novo.

The plutonium is harder to get rid of....and much more dangerous to people...even when just sitting around.

What we are seeing now is the price of the Cold War. Another massive land war in Europe was avoided...but it wasn't free.

I am flabbergasted, that is the most brilliant suggestion I have heard about the stuff.

It could be a blessing to all of us. We would be able to get rid of our huge surplus of nuclear junk that is eating up tax dallars, eliminate the need for them to make any enrichment plants and have their power plants on line as fast as they can be built.

It would be highly profitable to the US to just give it to them. It would reduce the risk of them building any hidden enrichment plants and would provide them with all the reactor fuel they could possibly use for a long time.Tthe best part it would eliminate a huge environmental hazard we know pay an arm and leg each year to keep from killing all of us.

 

[Cognescenti]

I am flabbergasted, that is the most brilliant suggestion I have heard about the stuff.

It could be a blessing to all of us. We would be able to get rid of our huge surplus of nuclear junk that is eating up tax dallars, eliminate the need for them to make any enrichment plants and have their power plants on line as fast as they can be built.

It would be highly profitable to the US to just give it to them. It would reduce the risk of them building any hidden enrichment plants and would provide them with all the reactor fuel they could possibly use for a long time.Tthe best part it would eliminate a huge environmental hazard we know pay an arm and leg each year to keep from killing all of us.

Perhaps not all that brilliant. The problem is, according to their own claims, the Iranians already have a Uranium enrichment plant with 1000 modern centrifuges. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but they most likely have some capability and they may even have the production capability spread out geographically to reduce the chance of elimination with one strike and to conceal it from the West and you know who. So unless we can convincingly prove that all their capability is dismantled, we might actually be priming their pump with moderately enriched Uranium and shorten the time they need to produce HEU. :-[

On the other hand, the PR value would be undeniable. Imagine if the US Ambassador to the UN stood and addressed the Iranian delegation and said. "OK, you guys want peaceful nuclear power? You don't need enrichement, we will give you the fuel."

Still, I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw a case of pistachios.