General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: IAEA - there was no imminent threat [View all]ProfessorGAC
(73,653 posts)We're talking about justifying a military strike using "imminent threat" as the lever.
60% does not constitute an imminent threat.
So, the lack of other uses is irrelevant because what it is NOT is weapons grade.
I'm disputing the immediacy of the threat and that isn't whistling past the graveyard. You using that term doesn't mean it's accurate.
What is accurate is that there are miles & miles between 60% & weapons Grade.
Do I want Iran to have nukes? Absolutely not. But, I think they were so far from it that there is no justification for the recent events.
You seem to want to excuse this action by a guy who said he would not involve the US in wars unless the US was threatened. We weren't; they did it anyway. And, you seem to be good with it because "60%".
Edit history
Recommendations
9 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):