4 ms·
Presumably if you allow monitors for non-weapons uses, the accounting of where the material goes is relatively straightforward. Therefore monitoring could not b
by mgiampapa 1y ago
Presumably if you allow monitors for non-weapons uses, the accounting of where the material goes is relatively straightforward. Therefore monitoring could not be allowed, ipso facto, they are doing it for weapons.
- rocqua 1y agoAn other compatible explanation is that they wanted ambiguity about their weapon production. Besides, wasn't this whole thing triggered by a UN report showing they had made a lot more 50% enriched stuff than expected? I.e. the monitoring "worked"
- hnaccount_rng 1y agoBut ambiguity with respect to weapons production has to be taken as a confirmation of an intent to develop weapons of the opposite side. Which makes this equivalent to just having a nuke program. It doesn't even give you a bargaining chip because there is nothing you can do as a step back (since you didn't do anything in the first place)
- rocqua 1y agoThe step back is allowing inspections.