Thanks “highly respected” Emir of Qatar for all he has done in seeking peace for the region. 
OK. Now that is out of the way, I thought you were saying that Indian nuc bomb making facilities will be bombed same as the Iranian ones. That is the problem with one line responses. Either they misrepresent what you have in mind or they can be construed as ati telivi(I am presuming you know Telugu, if not it means being "too clever by half"
)So it was even shorter prior to the military action. So it was an emergency, POTUS could legally act to degrade the breakout time, and then go to Congress to get authorization to complete the job.Let’s just say the “breakout time” is now measured in days, not months.
JCPOA-IWT is a false equivalence. US pulled out of JC(whatever). India put IWT only in abeyance. So, yes India has the right to punish shittistan if they violate IWT.
They are still a signatory so are we. If they pull out of it, then it is different matter. Let them goto intl tribunals and intl courts to litigate India's abeyance.It’s actually more like Pakistan saying it will drop the Shimla Accord in response to India suspending the Indus Waters Treaty. The initiator (Trump’s US) broke the deal first—and then complains when the other side no longer honors it? Worse, that withdrawal accelerated Iran’s nuclear capabilities, not slowed them. Actions have consequences.A_Gupta wrote: ↑23 Jun 2025 10:20The US has no right to strike anyone for an agreement that the US walked out of. The other JCPOA signatories have a greater right, if any.The US has a right to strike Iran for violation of JCPOA.
It would be like after India put the IWT in abeyance, India having a right to punish Pakistan for Pakistan now violating the IWT.
(coming to think of it, I would like India to have that right
It works against opponents like pakis and chinis. My concern is with US, if and when it goes rogue and decides that no one other than 5 NWS states should hold any nukes and puts in a military option for disarmament. Are we in a position to stop the B's2, and their bunker busters from dismantling out nuke infra? trump is saying to the world "never say NEVER" and we should take steps to protect ourselves from this.
Yes, facts do matter. Trump is the legally elected POTUS as per the US Constitution. He also got popular vote. Simply accepting the fact that he is the POTUS is not tantamount to "worshiping" him. There are some fringe elements who are like that. But please stop insulting the intelligence of BRF posters and suspecting their motives.
Total of USD 1.7 B out of which (iirc) USD 700 M in small bills of different currencies. That kind of cash can buy a lot of terror and terrorists.
We are not prosecuting here the Trump withdrawal from the JCPOA. That was ill-advised, but don't keep shifting the context. Put our shared dislike of Trump aside and be objective. So I'll speak of POTUS, not Trump.Mid‑2025: With existing 60% stock (~408 kg), breakout to 90% could take just 7–12 days
Facts matter!
Jay — totally get the concern, especially with unpredictable leaders like Trump around. But India–US ties are strong right now, and it’s hard to see the US going rogue against a friendly nuclear power like India.Jay wrote: ↑24 Jun 2025 03:21It works against opponents like pakis and chinis. My concern is with US, if and when it goes rogue and decides that no one other than 5 NWS states should hold any nukes and puts in a military option for disarmament. Are we in a position to stop the B's2, and their bunker busters from dismantling out nuke infra? trump is saying to the world "never say NEVER" and we should take steps to protect ourselves from this.
The Biden administration engaged in more than a year of indirect negotiations with Iran aimed at reviving the Iran nuclear deal, from which the US withdrew in 2018 under the Trump administration.
Those efforts collapsed in late 2022, as the US accused Iran of making “unreasonable” demands related to a probe by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a UN nuclear watchdog, into unexplained traces of uranium found at undisclosed Iranian sites. In the months that followed, the administration maintained that the Iran nuclear deal was “not on the agenda.”
Iran’s new president has suggested they are open to engagement with the West. However, a senior State Department official told CNN that they no longer believe that there can be a return to the nuclear deal because Iran has engaged in too many escalatory acts in the years since talks broke down.
“We’re in a very different world, a lot of time has elapsed, Iran has done a lot of things that make a return to JCPOA non-viable,” the official said.
The State Department also said that there is no anticipation that the recent election in Iran will change the country’s behavior.
“We have no expectations that this election will lead to a fundamental change in Iran’s direction or its policies,” State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said earlier this month. “At the end of the day, it’s not the president that has the ultimate say over the future of Iran’s policy; it is the supreme leader, and of course we have seen the direction that he has chosen to take Iran in. Obviously, if the new president had the authority to make steps to curtail Iran’s nuclear program, to stop funding terrorism, to stop destabilizing activities in the region, those would be steps that we would welcome. But needless to say, we don’t have any expectations that that’s what’s likely to ensue.”
Excellent question. Let me answer this and share my perspective:A_Gupta wrote: ↑24 Jun 2025 04:19 Amber G wrote:We are not prosecuting here the Trump withdrawal from the JCPOA. That was ill-advised, but don't keep shifting the context. Put our shared dislike of Trump aside and be objective. So I'll speak of POTUS, not Trump.Mid‑2025: With existing 60% stock (~408 kg), breakout to 90% could take just 7–12 days
Facts matter!
The question was - was POTUS's bombing of Iran without Congressional authorization legal/constitutional per US domestic law/constitution?
My initial answer was it was illegal. I had not realized that there really was no time for a lengthy Congressional debate.
If the breakout was 7-12 days, then it was an emergency. POTUS does have the authority to act to degrade the breakout time (of course, your estimate previously provided was that the US strikes did not really change the breakout time, which is incredible to me) and then ask Congress for authorization to complete the job.
And to repeat, and I won't say anymore after this - to believe that Iran had a breakout time of 7-12 days and it remains the same after Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan are rather comprehensively hit is (a) to believe in miracles and (b) means that Iran has sufficient undeclared capacity which puts it in violation of the NPT, I would think. This latter is enough to justify war.
Yes that's what it is. Also same reason why NATO and. Us taking pot shots at Russia from behind UkraineAmber G. wrote: ↑24 Jun 2025 05:05Jay — totally get the concern, especially with unpredictable leaders like Trump around. But India–US ties are strong right now, and it’s hard to see the US going rogue against a friendly nuclear power like India.Jay wrote: ↑24 Jun 2025 03:21
It works against opponents like pakis and chinis. My concern is with US, if and when it goes rogue and decides that no one other than 5 NWS states should hold any nukes and puts in a military option for disarmament. Are we in a position to stop the B's2, and their bunker busters from dismantling out nuke infra? trump is saying to the world "never say NEVER" and we should take steps to protect ourselves from this.
That said, MAD still applies — any country, even the US, knows that striking India would invite massive retaliation. That’s exactly why India’s building up credible second-strike capability. It’s about keeping all options covered, even against irrational actors.
)But that region is full of depleted U anyway. What will a few more atoms of U235 do that U238 doesnt?SRajesh wrote: ↑25 Jun 2025 00:51 If Iran managed to spirit away bulk or some of the enriched Uranium then where did it disappear??
How safe is it??
Where is it kept and who is guarding it??
More importantly can a 60% enriched U be used for a Dirty Bomb??
A Dirty Bomb is a dangerous scenario isn’t it??
I hope Trump gets impeached soon. Otherwise we at BRF have to suffer from this kind of childish immature posts for 3+ years.Amber G. wrote: ↑24 Jun 2025 20:42Iran & Israel "don’t know what the F.... they’re doing",
Definitely ..Deserves ..
[img...]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GuNVokHbIAA ... ame=medium[/img]
Brutum fulmen 
As a thought exercise, I expect every Pakistani general visiting anywhere is scanned for possibly carrying HEU along.Amber G. wrote: ↑24 Jun 2025 00:55 - And about detection — here's the uncomfortable truth:
Uranium, even weapons-grade, is not easily detectable with standard border or cargo gamma counters. It’s an alpha emitter (which doesn’t penetrate) and gives off only weak gammas. Unless you have specialized neutron or active interrogation systems, or the uranium is unshielded (which it wouldn’t be), it can pass unnoticed.
This is precisely why smuggling of HEU is a nightmare scenario for nuclear security experts — it’s the hardest material to detect and the easiest to weaponize once enriched.
Key Points and Summary: Iran’s Hoot supercavitating torpedo, believed to be a reverse-engineered version of the Soviet Shkval, is a key asset in its asymmetric naval strategy. The US Navy, at present, does not have such a weapon.
-By creating a gas bubble around itself to dramatically reduce water resistance, the Hoot can reportedly travel at speeds of around 200 knots (370 km/h), making it nearly impossible for US or Israeli naval vessels to evade or counter.
-While its range is limited (10-15 km) and its straight-line attack path makes it difficult to guide, its sheer speed provides a powerful deterrent and a means to strike high-value targets like aircraft carriers in the constrained waters of the Persian Gulf.
