Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointman
The amount and enrichment levels that are allowed for peaceful usage were outlined in the safeguards that Iran signed and breached. And those were thresholds for all participants, not something specifically designed to discriminate Iran.
The whole "they were X years away" and "they didn't authorize building an actual bomb" argument is moving goalposts. The treaty doesn't imply that it's ok to accumulate so much 60% uranium as long, as you are "few years away". And there's a reason for that. Beyond that point it's too late to stop them.
If you look at the safeguards (link below), mandatory to all signees, they include many things including even regulations of plant design. This is in order to ensure that the plant is peaceful by design. Once you have built a plant that is designed to be able to produce a bomb, it's an alert already. Early warnings are built into the system and considering how deadly nukes are, it's a right approach. Or at least one that Iran has agreed upon.
https://www.iaea.org/publications/10...infrastructure |
If the punishment for not following an international treaty is to get bombed, Israel may want to go re-read the fine print on some of the stuff they signed. Maybe Canada should help enforce those provisions? Since they've decided countries can unilaterally attack another due to treaty breaches, it seems only proper. Due process doesn't seem important, right?