Trying to moralize actions that are simply in the strategic interest of the US and our allies will lead you nowhere. Ukraine could have a king and stoned the gays and we still would have backed them against Russia.
Did Ukraine do such things to Russia?
US has intervened at times but it is a democracy, administrations come and go. They shook off McCarthyism. To my knowledge, the US has not expressed the will to wipe off a population.
So us has been funding the death of iran 40 years ago, and iran has no right to say anything about it? This is far more than supporting terrorism. This is supporting your neighboring country to attack you.
Rest of your arguments are irrelavant. Biggest ally of us is saudis, and they are doing pretty much everything iran does, in a highly totaliter regime. They kill opponent, hang homosexuals, have a supreme regime, yet us loves them.
I am just saying, there is bit of an inconsistency here.
And it's quite amusing what you just confirmed with your own words what Russia isn't a genocidal fanatical society hellbent on eradicating everything they don't like.
Above-ground facilities containing highly radioactive actinide products, supplying power to nearby civilization, cooled using nearby waterways
> us can in iran
Deep underground enrichment facilities containing weakly radioactive uranium, hours away from population centers
b) Active reactors contain very "hot" decay products that are very bad for your health if atomised by an explosion and spread around. Chernobyl is the prototypical example of this. Enriched Uranium is less radioactive than natural Uranium, that's the point! Natural Uranium would "trigger itself" prematurely due to its constant background decay radiation.
So, attacking a nuclear facility is valid if they are not that radioactive (since you are attacking you are not planning to use it anyway)
Did I get your answer correctly ?
Right now? Not that we know of.
Historically? Yes.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-tw...
[citation needed]
