The one question on Iran no leftist can answer. Why 60%

[Cypress]

You are a lar.

So you didn't know 1) that 60% uranium enrichment is not weapons grade, and 2) you didn't know highly enriched uranium has civilian applications in medical diagnostics.

You might want to do more research next time before you bomb someone you claim is an imminent threat to the United States.


Remember how you Neocons tried to trick us 22 years ago into believing Iraq was supposedly building nuclear weapons?

 

[Cypress]

So, they--Iran--has no fucking need for medical Mo 99.

They don't do medical diagnostics in Iran?

Here are the facts on how this thread evolved.

Neocons claimed 60 percent uranium enrichment is weapons grade, and then they tried to claim there is no civilian use for highly enriched uranium.

Both claims are demonstrably wrong.


You might want to do more research next time before you bomb someone you claim is an imminent threat to the United States.

I didn't buy the bullshit you Neocons claimed about Iraq supposedly building nuclear weapons 22 years ago - and because of that attempted deception, your burden of proof is higher now.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

They don't do medical diagnostics in Iran?

They don't possess the necessary equipment to need Mo 99 or Tc 99. Therefore, that isn't a valid reason to be highly enriching uranium for them. Further, they aren't selling that highly enriched uranium on the world market to anyone else that might actually need Mo 99 / Tc 99

Here are the facts on how this thread evolved.

Neocons claimed 60 percent uranium enrichment is weapons grade, and then they tried to claim there is no civilian use for highly enriched uranium.

Both claims are demonstrably wrong.

Your claim is poorly worded and incorrect. The claim is that 60% enriched uranium has no civilian use in Iran. Further, 60% enriched uranium can easily be further enriched into highly weaponizable uranium. Therefore, the argument is that Iran is enriching uranium for use in nuclear weapons since they internally as a nation have no other use for it.

You might want to do more research next time before you bomb someone you claim is an imminent threat to the United States.

Therefore, you might want to more closely examine the argument being made and apply reason to it rather than subtly changing that argument to fit a preconceived set of outcomes you favor.

I didn't buy the bullshit you Neocons claimed about Iraq supposedly building nuclear weapons 22 years ago - and because of that attempted deception, your burden of proof is higher now.

No, it is your burden of proof that must be higher. Explain by showing that Iran is using, currently, highly enriched uranium for some non-weapon purpose. That is, demonstrate they have a use for it and are actually using it for that purpose. That means saying that there is a medical application for it without showing that they have the necessary medical devices and trained personnel IN USE you have no argument in that particular application.

I already showed, including a world map, that Iran does not posses any SPECT scanners, the most common use in medicine for Mo 99 / Tc 99.

 

[zymurgy]

So you didn't know 1) that 60% uranium enrichment is not weapons grade, and 2) you didn't know highly enriched uranium has civilian applications in medical diagnostics.

You might want to do more research next time before you bomb someone you claim is an imminent threat to the United States.


Remember how you Neocons tried to trick us 22 years ago into believing Iraq was supposedly building nuclear weapons?

you keep repeating this nonsense

the entire world was concerned with the enrichment. the only thing that changed is Trump is elected and you retards are against everything he stands for

P5+1 ring a bell dipshit?

 

[Cypress]

They don't possess the necessary equipment to need Mo 99 or Tc 99. Therefore, that isn't a valid reason to be highly enriching uranium for them. Further, they aren't selling that highly enriched uranium on the world market to anyone else that might actually need Mo 99 / Tc 99


Your claim is poorly worded and incorrect. The claim is that 60% enriched uranium has no civilian use in Iran. Further, 60% enriched uranium can easily be further enriched into highly weaponizable uranium. Therefore, the argument is that Iran is enriching uranium for use in nuclear weapons since they internally as a nation have no other use for it.


Therefore, you might want to more closely examine the argument being made and apply reason to it rather than subtly changing that argument to fit a preconceived set of outcomes you favor.


No, it is your burden of proof that must be higher. Explain by showing that Iran is using, currently, highly enriched uranium for some non-weapon purpose. That is, demonstrate they have a use for it and are actually using it for that purpose. That means saying that there is a medical application for it without showing that they have the necessary medical devices and trained personnel IN USE you have no argument in that particular application.

I already showed, including a world map, that Iran does not posses any SPECT scanners, the most common use in medicine for Mo 99 / Tc 99.

Five minutes of frantic Google research doesn't prove anything, and is completely insufficient to justify a war on another nation.

Since you Neocons exaggerated and lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities 22 years ago, the burden of proof is much higher on you now, if you want to claim we need to attack a nation because they are supposedly an imminent threat to the United States.

Your Neocon buddies on this thread and others have already been caught red handed lying that Iran has possession of weapons-grade uranium, and that highly-enriched uranium can't be used for anything but weapons systems.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Five minutes of frantic Google research doesn't prove anything, and is completely insufficient to justify a war on another nation.

Right back at ya! Five minutes of Google research doesn't justify not going to war with another nation.

Since you Neocons exaggerated and lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities 22 years ago, the burden of proof is much higher on you now, if you want to claim we need to attack a nation because they are supposedly an imminent threat to the United States.

Sweeping generalization coupled to a smear. That's followed by a non sequitur using a motte and bailey fallacy.

You assert that Iran has peaceful uses for highly enriched uranium because those uses exist without ever demonstrating Iran actually uses any of them (the Bailey). You then say that's a reason for not attacking Iran (the motte).

Your Neocon buddies on this thread and others have already been caught red handed lying that Iran has weapons grade uranium, and that highly-enriched uranium can't be used for anything but weapons systems.

A fallacy of composition.

 

[Nordberg]

Attach files

They don't possess the necessary equipment to need Mo 99 or Tc 99. Therefore, that isn't a valid reason to be highly enriching uranium for them. Further, they aren't selling that highly enriched uranium on the world market to anyone else that might actually need Mo 99 / Tc 99


Your claim is poorly worded and incorrect. The claim is that 60% enriched uranium has no civilian use in Iran. Further, 60% enriched uranium can easily be further enriched into highly weaponizable uranium. Therefore, the argument is that Iran is enriching uranium for use in nuclear weapons since they internally as a nation have no other use for it.


Therefore, you might want to more closely examine the argument being made and apply reason to it rather than subtly changing that argument to fit a preconceived set of outcomes you favor.


No, it is your burden of proof that must be higher. Explain by showing that Iran is using, currently, highly enriched uranium for some non-weapon purpose. That is, demonstrate they have a use for it and are actually using it for that purpose. That means saying that there is a medical application for it without showing that they have the necessary medical devices and trained personnel IN USE you have no argument in that particular application.

I already showed, including a world map, that Iran does not posses any SPECT scanners, the most common use in medicine for Mo 99 / Tc 99.

You are a badly dishonest poster. https://www.nti.org/education-center/facilities/tehran-research-reactor-trr/ Iran uses radiation for medical uses and research.
You do not even try. https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/04/10/745928/Iran-Pezeshkian-AEOI-Rhenium-188-cancer

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Attach files

You are a badly dishonest poster. https://www.nti.org/education-center/facilities/tehran-research-reactor-trr/ Iran uses radiation for medical uses and research.
You do not even try. https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/04/10/745928/Iran-Pezeshkian-AEOI-Rhenium-188-cancer

You are the one being dishonest.

Highly enriched uranium for that reactor is 20%, not 60.

https://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs14vonhippel.pdf

The reactor, by your source, says it uses just 5.58 kg of HEU. Iran has over 400 kg of 60%+ HEU. That would supply that reactor for the next thousand + years at a 20 year refuel rate.

As for the second link, given Iran's propensity for massive propaganda and lies on everything they put in media, without other independent sources backing that claim I'll remain highly skeptical of it. There are plenty of other sites that repeat Iran's claim, but none that I could find that independently verify it.

 

[Cypress]

Right back at ya! Five minutes of Google research doesn't justify not going to war with another nation.


Sweeping generalization coupled to a smear. That's followed by a non sequitur using a motte and bailey fallacy.

You assert that Iran has peaceful uses for highly enriched uranium because those uses exist without ever demonstrating Iran actually uses any of them (the Bailey). You then say that's a reason for not attacking Iran (the motte).




A fallacy of composition.

Molybdenum-99, a product that has to be produced from highly-enriched uranium, is widely used in Iran for medical diagnostics and pharmaceuticals.

So that's the third time Neocons on this thread have tried to deceive me.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ta...-sets-up-project-to-produce-molybdenum-99/amp

 

[Cypress]

To summarize the last three days:

1) Neocons first tried to claim 60% U235-enrichment is equivalent to weapons grade uranium.

That claim is wrong.

2) Neocons then tried to claim there are no civilian uses for highly-enriched enriched uranium.

That claim is wrong.

3) Then Neocons tried to claim Iran has no use for the medical diagnostic isotopes which require production from highly-enriched uranium.

That claim was wrong too.

 

[Hume]

Not one leftist on this board can answer one simple question. Why was Iran enriching uranium to 60%? .

Why can't they?

 

[FastLane]

Why can't they?

Because Iran's nuclear program watch trying to build a bomb.

 

[Hume]

Because Iran's nuclear program watch trying to build a bomb.

so?

 

[FastLane]

so?

So don't try building a bomb that could incarcerate millions of American and a means to deliver it while simultaneously chanting Death to America and calling us the Great Satan. Or at least don't do it on Donald Trump's watch. Oh and don't have a history of killing over 1000 Americans that you could reach in the Middle East. And that whole sending assassin's for Trump was pretty stupid too. You can't blame us for taking them seriously. Actually I think we were very restrained.

 

[FastLane]

To summarize the last three days:

1) Neocons first tried to claim 60% U235-enrichment is equivalent to weapons grade uranium.

That claim is wrong.

2) Neocons then tried to claim there are no civilian uses for highly-enriched enriched uranium.

That claim is wrong.

3) Then Neocons tried to claim Iran has no use for the medical diagnostic isotopes which require production from highly-enriched uranium.

That claim was wrong too.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). claims Iran had over 400KG of 60% U 235

You can use 20% enriched uranium for medical needs

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Why can't they?

Because they signed the NPT and said they wouldn't do what they're doing.

 

[Hume]

Because they signed the NPT and said they wouldn't do what they're doing.

Why can Israel and the US have nuclear weapons

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Why can Israel and the US have nuclear weapons

The US had them prior to the NPT and Israel is not a signatory.

 

[Hume]

The US had them prior to the NPT and Israel is not a signatory.

duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Cypress]

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). claims Iran had over 400KG of 60% U 235

You can use 20% enriched uranium for medical needs

Frantically Googling for three minutes does not make you an expert on medical isotope production.

More importantly, you are continually backtracking and failing to provide proof of why Iran was an imminent threat to the United States. You already tried this bullshit 22 years ago concerning Iraq.