Brian Ellis wrote, in part:
"...Yes, if it has taken them 6 weeks to enrich 3 or 4 g to 4% with
their existing equipment, it would take them many decades to enrich
sufficient U to sustain an uncontrolled chain reaction (i.e. a bomb)."

I am no scientist so I am in no position to debate Brian on the
scientific basis of his assertion about Iran's ability to make nuclear
weapons. However, I am an historian and I do recall that the US was able
to develop two kinds of nuclear weapons (one plutonium and one uranium
based)  in just four years, starting from scratch. Not only did the US
and its British cohorts have to prove concepts they also had to overcome
the engineering issues associated with all aspects of nuclear weapon
development. And they were using technology and tools that, today, are
at least 65 years old.

Just why will it take Iran "decades" to develop a nuclear weapon, when
the US and Britain were able to do it all in just 4 years, 65 years ago?
 Are they that stupid? Do they lack the resources? ... the resolve?

After the US dropped the bomb on Hiroshima Werenr Heisenberg, one of the
top German/Nazi scientists who had worked on the German nuclear program,
and many of his colleagues, were initially skeptical that the Hiroshima
bomb was really a nuclear weapon. He was convinced that the Americans
could not have possibly developed, in such a short time, enough
fissionable material for one bomb, much less two. The fact is the US had
the ability to drop many more A-bombs. A third bomb was being assembled
and could have been dropped as early as August 17 or 18 (the first was
dropped on August 6). Many more were scheduled for completion over the
following weeks. History is replete with instances of someone
underestimating the abilities of their enemies, much to their mortal danger.

Even if Brian is right, I don't get a lot of comfort from the claim that
Iran may have nuclear weapons after ten or so years.

Chuck Dolci