And what is the difference in kill power between a URANIUM nuclear bomb and a PLUTONIUM nuclear bomb?

O, but crazy uncle Joe B promised that if they "promise" to stop further development of a bomb, we´d lift our sanctions.

Hmmmmm!

I thought they aren´t trying to build a bomb. And.... If they are, they´re not close!

Hmmmmm!

Plutonium only makes sense, lower critical mass, cheaper to enrich and the technology is simpler. Thus the significance of this - big step toward getting what they want. Maybe the uranium process was the cover and they are actually much closer than anyone suspected.

We should send them a couple of ours.

Don´t bother O. He´s golfing.

Stop worrying - - love the bomb.

We´ll meet again
Don´t know where
Don´t know when
But I know we´ll meet again
Some sunny day - - - - - - - - - - -

Being "committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons" might be more credible if it involved more than talk about preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Iran´s been working toward them for 10 years or more. Those in power who are taking Iran on this course have yet to pay a real price, or even be credibly threatened. Western nations´ "leaders" can´t be ignorant of the fact that the "sanctions" hurt the population, not the mullahs. And Western populations can´t be ignorant of the fact that these western "leaders" have let the danger to all grow [to Iran, its neighbors, and western populations] -- for 10 years or more.

Take a tip from the fire department. The firemen don´t watch ´til a 10-story building is fully-involved before they hook up the pumper-trucks to the hydrants.

#3: Correct. For those who haven´t built "devices" in their basements... first, a "bomb" or missile warhead [compact, robust] is hard to build, but isn´t necessary. Think shipping container. A "plutonium device" is much simpler. It can have only two fissile [plutonium] components, which only need to be "fired" one into the other in a tube. Essentially no serious timing or control issues. See the US "Little Boy" bomb. A uranium device has more-difficult physics and engineering issues in creating the needed density in its critical mass. Many more segments [of a sphere in this case] must be fired into an explosively-compressed ball with exquisitely-fine timing or you have a dud. That timing [and the electronics and other parts necessary] is a much tougher task. See the US Fat Man bomb.

[cont.] However, a uranium-implosion explosive is a necessary part of a hydrogen [thermonuclear] device. Those are big enough to take out whole cities. Oh -- they use "heavy hydrogen" [deuterium and tritium]. Which can come from heavy water. Lightbulbs coming on, anyone?

#4: We could essentially erase Iran´s infrastructure with less than half the warheads on one of our SSBNs.

The telegraph article is a bit mis-leading at the very beginning. Countries possessing nuclear arms prior to the non-proliferation treaty include the USA, Russia, UK, France and China. Those possessing nuclear arms after the NPT of 1970 include India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Those countries suspected of gaining nuclear arms after the NPT includes....Israel. And now, Iran. In due time, we will find out if they do or don´t.

We shouldn´t listen to what people say whether it is Stinky the Gunrunner, or the UN, or the Iranians, who obviously are building a large bomb. That action says everything. As does our inaction and the UN´s.

The plan of Stinky and the UN is to have the Arabs enact the Final Solution that they helped Hitler start. They wish to exterminate the Jews. Stinky the Gunrunner is helping.

I was just commenting on the Buchanan article two threads up and thinking "I bet Veritas knows about this stuff." Two threads down I find exactly what I was looking for in #7´s post: Solid information, good writing and, most important, clear thinking.