What does "enriched to 60%" actually mean?

Wow.  Just...wow.

The Democrats are defending Iran and demonizing Israel--as they have for decades.  And a great question to ask (but of course not a single "journalist" will!) is, WHY?

The answers are obvious: First, Trump and the GOP support Israel.  And second, the leaders of the Democrat Party hate Christianity, so they support Islam.  And since one of the obsessions of Islam is to wipe Israel off the planet, the leaders of the Democrat Partei are anti-Israel.

If we had an honest Media they'd ask Dem leaders if they believe Iran should be allowed to build an atom bomb.  I suspect the answers would be VERY informative!

To understand why "the Media" will never ask Dems about this, I'm gonna have to get a tiny bit technical wif those of ya who don't know nuclear physics.  Sorry about that!

If you keep up with "current events" (spoiler:  ) you should have heard something about "enrichment."  No, it's not about Nancy Pelosi making 100 times her salary thru insider trading.  Instead it's about the fact that "natural" uranium won't explode.  Instead only one percent will.  The other 99% not only won't explode, it prevents the other one percent from exploding.

So to build an atomic bomb you have to get rid of most of the "useless" 99%, leaving the 'splodey part. 

Making an atomic bomb requires getting rid of most of the 99% until the normal one percent that goes boom becomes 90%.  This is called "enrichment," and fortunately it's VERY hard to do, otherwise every dipshit dictattor would have a dozen or so atomic bombs. 

 Now: Nations wail that they deserve the right to have nuclear powerplants.  To run one of those you only need to "enrich" uranium to about ten percent 'splodey parts--WAY short of bomb level.

Now: Your first Muslim president--the utterly brilliant Barky Obozo </sarc>--was fine with Iran having nuclear powerplants, so his faaaabulous "nuclear agreement" with Iran allowed the mullahs to "enrich" uranium to the ten percent needed to fuel such a generating plant.  And his faaabulous agreement provided that the U.N's IAEA could inspect Iran's enrichment facilities to ensure compliance.

Problem was, for years Iran has been violating that joke of an agreement by enriching U to 60%.  But we got that from spies, so couldn't show proof of a "chain of custody."  Which allowed the Media to bleat "Dis fake newz--just a right-wing scare story!!!  Yep yep yep!"

But then finally, a couple of months ago the generally corrupt IAEA let slip that its inspectors had indeed found samples of uranium from the Iranian centrifuge lines enriched to 60%.

Democrats immediately covered for Iran: "Dis not no problem, stupid deplorables!  Cuz 60% is obviously less than 90, so SEE??"

People who know nuclear physics DO see.  Which is: If your ostensible goal is to make fuel for a nuclear generating plant, why spend the huge amounts of time and electricity to enrich U to 60%, eh?

For Democrats: the ONLY reason to spend that much money is to be close enough to bomb-grade that two more passes thru the "enrichment line" will get you to bomb-grade.

Of course the IAEA only has tiny samples, so what we can't know are two things: First, how many kilograms of 60% do the mullahs have?  And second, do they have any bomb-grade that we just haven't found samples of?

The point is that enriching to 60% has no known purpose other than developing an atomic bomb.

 Democrats: "There must be some mistake!  The leaders of Iran are totally honest and trustworthy!  So the samples must have been contaminated!  Yeh, dat's it!  Prolly done by spies working for the Little Sata--uh, for Mossad!  Yeh, dat it!"