Quote Originally Posted by WW View Post
"If a non-nuclear strike on a facility will release radiological fall out then it quite frankly its not a legitimate target."

JMA, the working medium for enrichment is U-hexaflouride gas, which is stored in pressurized vessels, when not cycling thru thousands of centrifuges. Whether you attack with conventional (DU?) penetrators and explosives, or blast deeper/wider with nuclear bunker-busters, the goal would be to scatter the enriched uranium and feedstock so widely that it can't be salvaged. By design, it would result in tons of of highly radioactive ejecta, fallout over many square miles.

Given the limited effective radius of conventional/DU penetrators (see the B61 illustration above) and the goal that most of the tons of U-hexaflouride gas be breached and scattered, the radiological nature of an attack scenario trends planning forward to where 'no options are off the table', which plainly includes nuclear.

My point is that in discussing or encouraging this, we need to be honest with ourselves on 'what kind of war would it be?'. As envisioned and advocated, it would be an unprecedented radiological war of choice.

If the logic that leads me to make this point is faulty, put your work on the table.
Your point seems to be that if the nuclear facilities themselves are targeted there will be a catastrophic release radiological fall-out. This may well be so.

My point is that the Iranian leadership can be forced to dismantle their nuclear weapons programme through military preemptive strikes which will not result in a radiological discharge and may not even target the nuclear facilities themselves.

So removing the radiological discharge argument of yours what is your next point?