[Southack]

"How do you know?"

Because 64 Uranium gas centrifuges can't produce enough enriched Uranium in that amount of time.

To which, someone who knows little or nothing about nukes might ignorantly reply that Iran "otherwise" obtained a nuke...but if that was the case, Iran would have already tested it for one thing, and for another thing Iran wouldn't have publicly broken the UN monitoring seals on the 64 Uranium gas centrifuges...

...Because breaking those seals has brought about worldwide pressure against Iran, as well as hyper-alerted the Israelis...something that a real nuclear power in that region would have wanted to avoid prior to their first strike.

So that's how I know. It's physics (e.g. Uranium enrichment) and geostrategy (e.g. the element of surprise is gone once you publicly break those UN monitoring seals).

It's not even debatable.

Bookmark my posts. Bookmark this thread.

Iran will *not* test a nuke on or before March 22, 2006.

You can take that fact to the bank, and I will *ridicule* anyone on this thread who says otherwise...because I too am bookmarking this thread and I'll revisit it after March 22.

[strategofr]

"something that a real nuclear power in that region would have wanted to avoid prior to their first strike."

Your whole post makes sense. But what are they trying to do? This is what I can't figure out.

[Semper Paratus]

Iran will *not* test a nuke on or before March 22, 2006.

If Iran got a nuke somewhere else, it wouldn't need a test. It wouldn't test it's own prototype until they had made at least several along with the means of delivery knowing a 'test' would probably trigger a strike they could then retaliate against.