How close is Iran towards making Nuclear bomb

[Sir Smoke aLot]

We can hear that Iran is now starting to enrich Uranium above levels agreed under JCPOA (deal which was actually destroyed by Trump's decision to move out of it). Regardless, Iran and other signatories of the deal still try to hang on to it. That is important for 'both' sides here.

For Iran that means that they get access to world market and more opportunities for economy growth and connections with EU, USA and elsewhere. Without access to world market Iran will struggle but that doesn't mean that they are not able to survive because they are in the same situation for over 4 decades now. Hardest point in their history after revolution is war with Iraq so this economical show off with the USA might be easier for them. Just a guess.

Anyhow, Iran has no obligation to respect JCPOA anymore because nothing good did they got out of it and they have agreed upon demands from their part. It feels a bit crazy to listen to all those headlines about ''Iran destroying the deal'' - the deal which simply ain't there anymore.

As Zarif told to US press recently, multilateral deals can not be disbanded unilaterally. And that's telling.

Also, Iran has to change a lot of infrastructure to be able to :

a). enrich Uranium to 90%

b). make enough of it to be able to produce nuclear warhead (it would include additional centrifuges and locations, which are controlled under JCPOA)

This is most important but also only one part of the whole story and processes needed to actually build a weapon. Detailed information with opinions from relevant figures from US army and military sector, regarding this whole ''nuclear bomb'' issue is in the article on this LINK. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/01/how-close-is-iran-to-a-nuclear-bomb-really/

This is realistic overview, taken from the article :

''

Retired Vice Adm. John Miller, who commanded the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, said Iran likely realizes that obtaining a nuclear weapon would not provide much military advantage.

“Let’s just say for a hypothesis that, a year from now, Iran has a nuclear weapon—what’s going to happen next? What’s going to happen next is the Saudis are going to have a nuclear weapon,” Miller said. “Israel is a nuclear power, and now you have two Gulf states that are nuclear powers. What does that buy you in terms of actual military dominance? … It doesn’t strategically buy [Iran] anything over the long term.”

However, Tehran’s calculus could change, particularly if the United States decides to conduct a military strike targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, Davenport warned. At that point, Iran could decide it needs a nuclear weapon to deter against future aggressive U.S. action.''

---

What is of great interest to me is to see results and reasons about why USA politicians have summoned meeting with IAEA. It's puzzling since US officials worked hard to undermine everything which IAEA reported so far and every report showed Iranian compliance with agreed terms. Not only those terms agreed under JCPOA but also many more of older, minor agreements, so to say.

All i can see, generally, is that Iran can gain a lot from having a deal but only gain which USA could have is related to rhetoric and politics - having a deal opens possibility to brag about ''preventing Iran to poses nukes'' - and bragging was indeed one of the characteristics of this US administration (from Nikki Haley to president Trump i doubt that i have to remind anyone about the details).

Surely, such development would give new cards for Institute for Middle East in Washington (one associated greatly with AIPAC and neocon politicians) as they were advocating Iranian threat for long time.

But it's really hard to believe that USA would simply accept stronger Iran only to gain some political or PR related gains which are related more to internal politics than to foreign relations. Is this something with which to pave the way for Saudi Arabia to reveal that they posses nuclear weapon already?

Why is this crisis brought up at first place? Nukes seem to be some sort of boogeyman to scare little kids with in order to further political changes. I am confused.

In short : everything i wrote here is, at least partly, mentioned in posted link to article so if someone finds it hard to get through all this text you can simply read article. 

[Space Commander Travis]

Let Bibi show you with the aid of his Acme(TM) Bomb (guaranteed to wipe out all Roadrunners within a 5 kilometer radius):

Edited July 7, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome

[Piney]

40 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

 Bibi

I wonder if he spanks one off to the 'Trump Swimsuit Calendar' along with Pence. 

If Iran starts tossing stuff in his direction it would be a shame for the innocents but he'd deserve it......

 

[+and-then]

Building a bomb is a technologically straightforward task.  The fuel is the most difficult part.  Enriching to 20% takes about 90+ % of the effort.  From 20% to 90% is done quite quickly, in comparison.  

Anyone that thinks an Iranian bomb isn't a threat to the world is kidding themselves - as is their right - but denial leads to bad places.  The real issue seems to be that some will never accept the idea that Iran is a threat or that they want a bomb.  Even the evidence or those cached documents and warehouses of experimental data that Mossad stole wasn't enough to prove Iranian intent.  

So if they assemble a bomb - "It doesn’t strategically buy [Iran] anything over the long term.”?  WHO will attack them when they choose to stop the flow of oil on a whim?  The UK?  China?  Japan?  And I'll remind the doubters that Iran can, in very short order set up a mass-assembly system of centrifuges and factories to assemble LOTS of simple, gun-type weapons.  Were you aware that the Little Boy design was never even tested prior to dropping it?  

No, the real backdrop to this discussion is the total disinterest in whether Iran's desire to rule the ME - along with ending the Jewish state - is achieved.  I guess they figure it won't impact them who runs the ME and Israel deserves whatever comes her way but I think they are badly mistaken.  

The religious aspect that amuses you guys so much gives a thoughtful person some pause when they educate themselves in the doctrines of the Twelvers.  You see, guys, they believe they "win" by creating world chaos that has us all on the brink of destruction, for only THEN will their "Rightly Guided One" (Mahdi) return to lead them.  

So, the issue before us isn't whether the U.S. goes to war against Iran or not.  The issue is only, when does it begin and on whose terms.

[Space Commander Travis]

32 minutes ago, and then said:

So, the issue before us isn't whether the U.S. goes to war against Iran or not.  The issue is only, when does it begin and on whose terms.

The issue is whether the U.S. goes to war to satisfy the demands of another country which wants it to because it's too crafty to do so itself, so then it can claim that it has nothing to do with it, don't look at us, no sir bob. Essentially, whether the U.S. will serve as a mercenary force on behalf of Israel. (who you're so fond of it's always "she", isn't that romantic.) 

 

And I love for sheer richness of irony of your explaining how Iran is driven by religious fanaticism and a desire to see their ancient prohecies fulfilled. That's just ... .

Edited July 7, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome

[Piney]

26 minutes ago, and then said:

No, the real backdrop to this discussion is the total disinterest in whether Iran's desire to rule the ME - along with ending the Jewish state - is achieved.  I guess they figure it won't impact them who runs the ME and Israel deserves whatever comes her way but I think they are badly mistaken.  

SA wants to cook material too. Not build power plants. I think Iran just wants a "balance of power" to counter this.

 

[Sir Smoke aLot]

7 minutes ago, and then said:

Anyone that thinks an Iranian bomb isn't a threat to the world is kidding themselves - as is their right - but denial leads to bad places.

I do not think so, nukes in Iranian hands are not any more dangerous than those elsewhere. I would agree if only USA and Russia had nukes because they have both shown that nukes can be perfect deterrent and controlled. But the world is not the same anymore and many nations have nukes. Some of those nations are members and signatories of international law regarding nukes, others are not. Wild world i tell you.

10 minutes ago, and then said:

The real issue seems to be that some will never accept the idea that Iran is a threat or that they want a bomb.  Even the evidence or those cached documents and warehouses of experimental data that Mossad stole wasn't enough to prove Iranian intent.  

They might want it even tho that they claim differently as it's opposed to the essence of their ideology but let's say that we can not trust them, OK. How can we trust others that they will not use nukes? What is the measurement by which we determine who is fit to posses nukes? I ask because this is not 1950 and many more ''players'' will eventually try to get nukes i have no doubts about it.

I'd like to see those Mossad fairy tales, if you have links to share please? Considering Mossad motto and history i do not find them trustworthy at all.

14 minutes ago, and then said:

So if they assemble a bomb - "It doesn’t strategically buy [Iran] anything over the long term.”?  WHO will attack them when they choose to stop the flow of oil on a whim?  The UK?  China?  Japan?  And I'll remind the doubters that Iran can, in very short order set up a mass-assembly system of centrifuges and factories to assemble LOTS of simple, gun-type weapons.  Were you aware that the Little Boy design was never even tested prior to dropping it? 

US army did test nuke artillery, long time ago. There is a reason why such project was disbanded and never reproduced again, anywhere. It's strong claim to be made and is kinda surreal to think about making such accusations.

I do not know if the Little Boy was tested but i do know that Manhattan Project was not school project. It was something so serious and advanced that there was no doubt about functionality of the bomb after it's dropped.

You really want me to believe that Iran would make nuclear machine guns or nuclear suicide drone?

19 minutes ago, and then said:

No, the real backdrop to this discussion is the total disinterest in whether Iran's desire to rule the ME - along with ending the Jewish state - is achieved.  I guess they figure it won't impact them who runs the ME and Israel deserves whatever comes her way but I think they are badly mistaken.  

Again, you can not start war or build your accusations about baseless and hypothetical events. As for ending of the Jewish state i believe that Iran is actually referring to something like what Benny Morris is strongly advocating, weird isn't it?

22 minutes ago, and then said:

The religious aspect that amuses you guys so much gives a thoughtful person some pause when they educate themselves in the doctrines of the Twelvers.  You see, guys, they believe they "win" by creating world chaos that has us all on the brink of destruction, for only THEN will their "Rightly Guided One" (Mahdi) return to lead them.  

Since Zionist essence is built around religion, political Zionism is not the first form of Zionism i believe that it should also play important role when ''religious aspect'' is being discussed. As for Imam Mahdi we have discussed already here but generally there is no doubt in theology, he is not anti Christ.

Very good example of religious fanatic behavior is the strive to rebuild Temple Mount, move which also means that something else has to be destroyed. From radical elements within Israeli society such ideology elements have made their way up to the top of the state institutions, officials and many NGO's  and so on... Regardless of implications. That, by my opinion, is extreme behavior which leads to blood.

Such behavior and strive is also necessary in order to ''hasten the coming'' as said by most respected Rabbi to Netanyahu back in the 1990's.

Problem is that it was looked at as it is ( or should be ) something religious which is not really any problem, freedom of religion can not be taken away from anyone. But since such belief is now supported by top of the state it should also be regulated by law and evaluated justly.

So, man, regardless how plausible or wild some religious aspects are you can not use that in order to smear or, God forbid, start war against nations.

30 minutes ago, and then said:

So, the issue before us isn't whether the U.S. goes to war against Iran or not.  The issue is only, when does it begin and on whose terms.

On whose terms, well, that is very interesting remark  

I think that after Syria (country of some 20+ million people) managed to stand for so many years... Iran, nation of 80, well, they can not be occupied and beaten in that way.

What is the point then? You want to see another Japan?

Regardless of history of WW2 Japan deserves respect when final days came - they did not bow and they were divided about surrendering. It took some diplomatic pressure and games to shift opinion. Imagine, after 2nd nuke attack they still did not want to bow.

Conventionally you can forget war without too many casualties - on each side. For what? To stop Mahdi? Seems that that's how you evaluate this situation.

[Piney]

9 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

And I love for sheer richness of irony of your explaining how Iran is driven by religious fanaticism and a desire to see their ancient prohecies fulfilled. That's just ... .

No, the "richness of irony" is some American Christians think Ezekiel apply's to them and the 21st Century when any Rabbinical Scholar will tell you it was only kept for it's literary value and they think it's horse****. 

You have to admit though. It does sound very poetic in the original Hebrew. 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Piney
Sick of Doomsday Crap!!!

[DarkHunter]

37 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

US army did test nuke artillery, long time ago. There is a reason why such project was disbanded and never reproduced again, anywhere. It's strong claim to be made and is kinda surreal to think about making such accusations.

I do not know if the Little Boy was tested but i do know that Manhattan Project was not school project. It was something so serious and advanced that there was no doubt about functionality of the bomb after it's dropped.

You really want me to believe that Iran would make nuclear machine guns or nuclear suicide drone?

Might be slightly off topic but a lot of that is just plain wrong.

First the US didnt just test nuclear artillery they also fielded it along with the USSR, technically quite a few NATO nations also fielded nuclear artillery but it was under the control of America and used American equipment.  America didnt even disband its nuclear artillery till the mid 80s to early 90s depending on the equipment, they produced multiple different types of nuclear artillery shells for different ground and naval platforms, and if I remember correctly Russia still fields a few nuclear artillery pieces.

Second for the Manhattan project, the serious and advanced stuff as you put it, was really just the math to prove that the bomb would actually work and wasnt just some theoretical concept that couldnt actually work in the real world which Iran doesnt need to do as it's been proven that nuclear weapons work and how to get the enriched uranium or plutonium needed to make a nuclear bomb which again how to do so is rather well known and can be done by anyone who can get the nuclear material.

And then is not suggesting a nuclear machine gun or suicide drone.  Gun type weapon refers to the detonation mechanism for a fission nuclear weapon of which gun type is the easiest to produce as its literally just using high explosives to slam two pieces of enriched uranium together.  Implosion type tends to be more efficient and what is used for nuclear missiles as it requires significantly less nuclear material for a given yield but gun type is generally used for tactical level nuclear weapons like nuclear artillery shells, nuclear land mines, and the warhead used in the nuclear recoilless rifle America designed.

Ultimately if Iran decides to it wouldnt be that difficult for Iran to begin mass producing fission nuclear weapons especially since if I'm remembering correctly Iran has a few uranium mines within its borders.

Wanted to add in that only the plutonium implosion style nuclear weapon was tested before it was used due to the complexity of getting the implosion detonation system to work, the uranium gun type was never tested before it was dropped on Japan.

Edited July 7, 2019 by DarkHunter

[+and-then]

7 hours ago, Piney said:

SA wants to cook material too. Not build power plants. I think Iran just wants a "balance of power" to counter this.

 

Yet they have taken no steps to procure the bomb while Iran has been at it on the down low for many years.  What will be will be.  I won't cry any tears if Iran's nuclear infrastructure is reduced to rubble.

[+and-then]

7 hours ago, Piney said:

No, the "richness of irony" is some American Christians think Ezekiel apply's to them and the 21st Century when any Rabbinical Scholar will tell you it was only kept for it's literary value and they think it's horse****. 

You have to admit though. It does sound very poetic in the original Hebrew. 

Can you point to another time in history when Russia, Iran, and Turkey were all working together?  I'm not aware of one but I stand to be corrected.

[+and-then]

7 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

What is the measurement by which we determine who is fit to posses nukes?

A good first indication would be their political rhetoric against their neighbors.  Using language that is artful at times and at other times not so much, they openly show their hatred for the state of Israel and desire to destroy it.  If Israel were to end them as a nation in response, I would not shed a tear.

[+and-then]

7 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Regardless of history of WW2 Japan deserves respect when final days came - they did not bow and they were divided about surrendering. It took some diplomatic pressure and games to shift opinion. Imagine, after 2nd nuke attack they still did not want to bow.

They had war criminals facing a gallows who were making those noble decisions.  Next?

[+and-then]

6 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Gun type weapon refers to the detonation mechanism for a fission nuclear weapon of which gun type is the easiest to produce as its literally just using high explosives to slam two pieces of enriched uranium together. 

Thanks for explaining that to him.  I would have but I assumed he and the rest would understand a reference to something so basic in this discussion.

[Piney]

9 minutes ago, and then said:

Can you point to another time in history when Russia, Iran, and Turkey were all working together?  I'm not aware of one but I stand to be corrected.

And just how do you equate the Nations stated in the original "prophecy" with modern Nations? 

Last time I checked the Turks (Tujue) were still living in Asia and dancing with the Han at the time it was made...

 

[Piney]

13 minutes ago, and then said:

Yet they have taken no steps to procure the bomb while Iran has been at it on the down low for many years.  What will be will be.  I won't cry any tears if Iran's nuclear infrastructure is reduced to rubble.

And I won't lose any sleep if your "chosen" dirtballs are wiped from the planet.....

[Piney]

18 minutes ago, and then said:

Can you point to another time in history when Russia, Iran, and Turkey were all working together?  I'm not aware of one but I stand to be corrected.

and when Rabbis in Princeton and Oxford say Ezekiel is a pure flow of manure...It's a pure flow of manure.

But what would a Jewish Scholar know about his own sacred book? 

..Certainly more than a American pseudo-theologian that can't even read Hebrew.... 

[+and-then]

14 minutes ago, Piney said:

And just how do you equate the Nations stated in the original "prophecy" with modern Nations? 

Last time I checked the Turks (Tujue) were still living in Asia and dancing with the Han at the time it was made...

 

Well, the naming of Persia speaks for itself.  The others refer to people groups of Ezekiel's time that populated the regions known today by those modern names.  Unless there have been wholesale population transfers out of those regions over the years, it's a safe assumption that the people there constitute those in the prophecy but if you believe it to be nonsense then that's your choice.  When those three nations lead a coalition against Israel in the future you will no doubt find other sound reasoning to reject the reality you see before your eyes.  It won't change the outcome though.  That's the only important issue here.  To each his own belief.  

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, and then said:

Well, the naming of Persia speaks for itself.  The others refer to people groups of Ezekiel's time that populated the regions known today by those modern names.  Unless there have been wholesale population transfers out of those regions over the years, it's a safe assumption that the people there constitute those in the prophecy but if you believe it to be nonsense then that's your choice.  When those three nations lead a coalition against Israel in the future you will no doubt find other sound reasoning to reject the reality you see before your eyes.  It won't change the outcome though.  That's the only important issue here.  To each his own belief.  

Yes there has. The Slavs and the Rus moved into Russia later, during the Early Middle Ages. As with the Turks in Turkey. I don't see any real connections. 

Every ordained academic I know thinks it's trash!  I don't know one Priest or Minister that believes it or preaches it. I actually made calls to Methodist, Presbyterian and Anglican friends when I first heard about it. I was going to talk to my old Jesuit  instructor but he was moved.  

Believe what you want but no war is holy or good and if Israel starts a war if has nothing to do with "prophecy" and no good anywhere or with anybody will come from it. 

There will be nothing but ash and innocent children will die because of peoples ignorance.

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Piney said:

Believe what you want but no war is holy or good and if Israel starts a war if has nothing to do with "prophecy" and no good anywhere or with anybody will come from it. 

I don't believe war to be either of those things.  I never have.  OTOH, I recognize and accept the reality of what humans have done to each other since the first one chose to kill another.  It's what our species DOES.  The particular battles/war I speak of isn't one Israel begins.  The scripture makes clear that it is the coalition coming against them for a "spoil", for "cattle and goods".  My guess is it will be over energy reserves in the Golan or Mediterranean.  BTW... the people whose ignorance will lead to their deaths aren't Americans in this one.

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, and then said:

Can you point to another time in history when Russia, Iran, and Turkey were all working together?  I'm not aware of one but I stand to be corrected.

When Genghis Khan ruled big chunks of all of them and was knocking on Europe's door.

[Space Commander Travis]

52 minutes ago, and then said:

I don't believe war to be either of those things.  I never have.  OTOH, I recognize and accept the reality of what humans have done to each other since the first one chose to kill another.  It's what our species DOES.  The particular battles/war I speak of isn't one Israel begins.  The scripture makes clear that it is the coalition coming against them for a "spoil", for "cattle and goods".  My guess is it will be over energy reserves in the Golan or Mediterranean. 

which Israel doesn't possess, so why should they want to make their first priority to wipe out the Chosen People? Makes no sense at all. 

[Space Commander Travis]

Not to mention that the Sacred Land doesn't actually own the land in question, and that that it does occupy it did so by stealing from others. If you want to love a country that's done nothing but steal land from others, well, fine, but don't criticize anyone else for doing so.

[Sir Smoke aLot]

14 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Might be slightly off topic but a lot of that is just plain wrong.

First the US didnt just test nuclear artillery they also fielded it along with the USSR, technically quite a few NATO nations also fielded nuclear artillery but it was under the control of America and used American equipment.  America didnt even disband its nuclear artillery till the mid 80s to early 90s depending on the equipment, they produced multiple different types of nuclear artillery shells for different ground and naval platforms, and if I remember correctly Russia still fields a few nuclear artillery pieces.

Point is that such weapon was only tested, not used. There are many reasons why it wasn't used and was eventually disbanded. No need to go into so much details but thanks for writing it, i like details but wanted to make shorter post too.

14 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Second for the Manhattan project, the serious and advanced stuff as you put it, was really just the math to prove that the bomb would actually work and wasnt just some theoretical concept that couldnt actually work in the real world which Iran doesnt need to do as it's been proven that nuclear weapons work and how to get the enriched uranium or plutonium needed to make a nuclear bomb which again how to do so is rather well known and can be done by anyone who can get the nuclear material.

Manhattan project was reality in WW2 and it was, as i said, advanced and serious because if US did not manage to make nuke before Germany... There were numerous problems around Norway, plenty of missions to stop German capability of making nukes so, as a whole, Manhattan project was not only about ''math'', it was something far greater than that.

14 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

And then is not suggesting a nuclear machine gun or suicide drone.  Gun type weapon refers to the detonation mechanism for a fission nuclear weapon of which gun type is the easiest to produce as its literally just using high explosives to slam two pieces of enriched uranium together.  Implosion type tends to be more efficient and what is used for nuclear missiles as it requires significantly less nuclear material for a given yield but gun type is generally used for tactical level nuclear weapons like nuclear artillery shells, nuclear land mines, and the warhead used in the nuclear recoilless rifle America designed.

I got this wrong then :

16 hours ago, and then said:

to assemble LOTS of simple, gun-type weapons

This made me think about some wild experiments with Uranium. Actually it reminded me of uses which Uranium had when people did not know about health risks - things like glowing watches etc.

But yeah, let's say that i did not understand what he said here, still, does it mean that we should expect Iran to make wild nuclear weapons? So, by your words and by @and then, we do not have fear that Iran will make only nuclear missiles but whole range of nuclear powered weapons for destruction? Sorry but that can't hold. Too many ''what if's'' and assumptions which are more fit to new Terminator movie than real life and Iran, which so far has used only diplomacy - never aggression.

14 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Ultimately if Iran decides to it wouldnt be that difficult for Iran to begin mass producing fission nuclear weapons especially since if I'm remembering correctly Iran has a few uranium mines within its borders.

Wanted to add in that only the plutonium implosion style nuclear weapon was tested before it was used due to the complexity of getting the implosion detonation system to work, the uranium gun type was never tested before it was dropped on Japan.

Many nations have Uranium resources, i guess. Did they mine it? Are they aware that they have it? Should we be concerned about it? I just do not think that there is any importance in such explanations and arguments.

But generally, as we can see in this article in OP, it is not question about can they make nuke but what they gain from it and do they want it? Technical part is not question here, Iran is more than capable.

 

[Sir Smoke aLot]

8 hours ago, and then said:

A good first indication would be their political rhetoric against their neighbors.

As i said you should check what is Benny Morris saying about that. I believe that Iran is actually pointing the same reasons which Morris does, that Israel won't be here in next 25 years because reasons other than Iranian aggression.

As you must know because Benny is one of the most respected Zionist historians. Rhetoric today is mostly populist in nature, filled with demagogy etc and Iran is clear about one thing : ''whichever deal Palestinians agree with Israel we will support that deal''. You must know this, it's fundamental.

8 hours ago, and then said:

If Israel were to end them as a nation in response, I would not shed a tear.

Even tho that i believe how Israel is run, for whole of it's history with political Zionists, it's run by fanatics, responsible for some of most horrible crimes... I would not like to see 8 million people endangered. However, Israel has no capacity to end anyone. For decades unarmed Palestinian people manage to survive - what makes you think that Israel can touch Iran without being leveled to the ground? Israel is tiny man, they are not world power even with nukes. Using nukes would mean end for the one who use them, both politically and economically maybe even by military.

8 hours ago, and then said:

They had war criminals facing a gallows who were making those noble decisions.  Next?

How do you know they are war criminals? Were they murdering American civilians? I am not talking about Korea, China, Australia... I am talking about final days of war in Pacific between Japan and the USA in respect to how they defied even nuclear attacks. Japan was surely fanatically behaving, kamikaze etc. You believe that Iran is fanatical country. I wrote this for comparison, you can not dismiss it just like that. I hold to my beliefs and never spin around it.

 

8 hours ago, and then said:

Thanks for explaining that to him.  I would have but I assumed he and the rest would understand a reference to something so basic in this discussion.

You said ''GUN''. I use other words for big guns, like the word ''artillery'' or ''big gun'' or something else to speak about big guns and such. Maybe we should be more accurate in future, this ain't my main language but it's good that we have clarified this misunderstanding.