>>>>Right now, there is a great deal of fuss over the comments by the president of Iran, who wants Israel to be "wiped off the map".
>>>>
>>>>It seems to me that it was well-known for a while that Iran had this goal; the only new elements are that it is the active president who does the comments, and that he does so quite openly.
>>>>
>>>>I understand that Iran also has some other objectives, such as eliminating the United States, and eliminating the Bahá'í Faith both within and outside Iran.
>>>
>>>Therefore, it behooves the world to stop Iran from developing or obtaining nuclear weapons, BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE.
>>
>>So does "by any means possible" include nuking them to stop them having nukes????? That's what the phrase is generally accepted to mean in the U.S. and Canada.
>
>Remember, in 1981 or 1982, Israel bombed (with conventional weapons) some nuclear facility Iraq was building. I think something like this would work very nicely.

Yes, I suppose it would. So you didn't mean "BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE", but rather something like 'by any conventional means as may be necessary".

The question is, how can "the world" accommodate any country's desire to have nuclear-generated electricity while at the same time preventing that country from using by-products of that to create nuclear weapons?
So far the record is extremely poor in that regard.
And why is it that Canada, US, UK and several other countries are free to build whatever nuclear reactors for electrical generation purposes as they please, yet other countries must be prevented from doing the same? I think it's a fair bet that the US, UK, France, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa(?) all use their reactors' by-products to make nuclear weapons.